RBI vs SBI economists showdown: Plagiarism allegations posted on LinkedIn; here’s what the matter is about
In an unprecedented situation, a public spat has emerged on social media between professionals from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the State Bank of India (SBI).A senior official from the Reserve Bank of India’s monetary policy division has raised allegations of plagiarism against economists at the State Bank of India, India’s biggest banking institution, according to an ET report.During the Diwali celebrations, Sarthak Gulati, an RBI economist serving as assistant general manager, shared a detailed LinkedIn post saying: “As professionals in the financial and economic research community, we rely on originality, attribution, and integrity in our analysis. That’s why it’s deeply concerning to see what appears to be verbatim replication of RBI’s Monetary Policy Reports (MPRs) in recent SBI Ecowrap reports – without any attribution.“The monetary policy department operates under RBI deputy governor Poonam Gupta.His post elaborately details how an SBI ‘Ecowrap’ publication, which regularly supports government policies, has allegedly reproduced substantial content from the RBI April report – including identical paragraphs, charts and descriptions. The post also claims that the October edition of Ecowrap contains similar content and structure to RBI’s October monetary policy report, with supporting visual evidence from both documents.Gulati’s LinkedIn profile includes a standard disclaimer stating his views are “personal” rather than representative of his organisation.The SBI research team responsible for Ecowrap operates under Soumya Kanti Ghosh, the bank’s chief economic advisor. Ghosh, who serves on both the 16th Finance Commission and the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, is regularly referenced in news coverage.SBI has dismissed the allegations, calling them “sad and laced with sensationalism.” Subsequently, Tapas Parida, a member of Ghosh’s team, posted on LinkedIn, “…our equation and methodology are clearly distinct from the one deployed at the central bank’s end and hence stand out as a beacon of ingenuity of original research”.The research topic addresses “spatial inflation convergence”, which economists describe as a process where regional inflation rates move towards a balanced level over time. Parida explains that whilst RBI’s April research is comprehensive and spans a longer duration, SBI’s analysis concentrated on recent twelve-month data to evaluate current inflation patterns. Notably, an Ecowrap table on inflation lists “RBI, NSO, and SBI Research” as references.The economic and banking community was startled by this unprecedented action from a mid-ranking RBI official, who openly criticised the economic team of India’s largest financial institution, which global investors typically regard as equivalent to a sovereign entity. Research circles suggest the dispute might stem from professional rivalry and conflicting viewpoints between senior officials of both organisations, the ET report said.Economist Ajit Ranade addressed the issue with a direct statement: “Stealing ideas may be flattering to the original author, but is a serious breach of the code among academics and researchers. Proper attribution, citation, and providing references are basics. Hope Ecowrap clarifies.”In response to defend the SBI team’s stance, Parida highlighted that following SBI’s analysis of potential monetary policy variations under a hypothetical Trump-led Federal Reserve, a Harvard academic investigated a comparable subject.The SBI representative emphasised that rather than focusing on disagreements or chronological order, such instances demonstrate how collective ideas contribute to worldwide academic discourse, stating that no organisation or academic should claim exclusive rights over intellectual concepts.“Far from conflict or even arguing who followed whom, this illustrates how shared ideas enrich and shape global scholarship. Ultimately, no institution, least of all any scholar, should threaten to hold an exclusive monopoly over the power of ideas,” Parida said,The intention appeared to be highlighting that research on spatial price convergence has existed previously and will continue to develop in future studies.While this brief LinkedIn discussion between representatives of two established institutions is unlikely to escalate into an extended dispute, its unexpected intensity caught many observers by surprise.
