RBI, SBI economists clash publicly over ‘plagiarism’ allegations

“As professionals in the financial and economic research community, we rely on originality, attribution, and integrity,” Gulati wrote in a LinkedIn post last week. “It’s deeply concerning to see what appears to be direct reproduction of RBI’s MPRs in recent SBI Ecowrap reports — without acknowledgment.”

Gulati cited specific instances where, he said, the overlap was “word-for-word.” According to him, the July 2025 Ecowrap reproduced significant portions of Chapter 2 – Price and Cost Dynamics from the April 2025 MPR, including “paragraphs, key charts, and narratives.” Similarly, he alleged that the October 2025 Ecowrap mirrored both the “language and structure” of the central bank’s corresponding MPR, again without attribution.

The MPR is a six-monthly report published in accordance with the RBI Act. As per the law, the report must explain the sources of inflation and detail inflation forecasts for the next 6-18 months.

RBI and SBI spokespersons did not respond to mails from The Indian Express.

Poonam Gupta, Deputy Governor, is in charge of the RBI’s Monetary Policy Department. She also looks after the Department of Economic and Policy Research. Soumya Kanti Ghosh is currently Group Chief Economic Advisor of SBI.

Gulati further claimed that even the RBI’s signature “boxed analyses” — which highlight original insights or new empirical findings — were lifted and rebranded as SBI’s in-house work. “The analysis on spatial price convergence, first presented in the RBI’s MPR, has been re-used in Ecowrap as if it were SBI’s own,” he said in his LinkedIn post. “This not only misleads readers but also undermines the professional standards that govern serious economic research.”

The allegation drew a pointed response from Tapas Parida, an economist at SBI, who defended his institution’s work and rejected the charge of ‘plagiarism’. Parida argued that economic research, by its very nature, evolves through cumulative learning and shared methodologies.

“Economic research grows through an iterative process,” Parida wrote. “Scholars build upon established frameworks, refine empirical approaches, and adapt methodologies to new data and contexts. It is therefore natural that multiple researchers might explore similar themes or questions.”

Parida emphasised that originality in research lies not merely in topic selection but in the analytical lens applied to it. “Two studies can examine the same subject but differ significantly in motivation, scope, and methodology,” he said. “The essence of research is not about exclusive ownership of ideas but about contributing meaningfully to a broader academic dialogue through transparency, rigour, and sound interpretation.”

Parida also cautioned against what he called “intellectual monopolies” in the domain of public policy research. “No institution, and certainly no scholar, should claim exclusive rights over ideas,” Parida said. “The strength of the discipline lies in its openness — in diverse perspectives that collectively advance understanding.”

Notably, in December 2024 and March 2025, SBI in its Ecowrap reports had written about how inflation across states is converging to the RBI’s medium term target of 4 per cent stating sigma convergence, prior to the RBI’s April 2025 MPR which talked about ‘spatial convergence in inflation’ – or inflation across regions moving towards the national average.

In his LinkedIn post, Parida also said the circular nature of research ensures similar, if not same, research being carried over at multiple locations, at individual and on group/institutional level, which incidentally have better and quicker access to plethora of previous research and all-encompassing data sets from wide, credible sources. “That, at times, also threatens to put in place a structural mirage, wherein a priori interpretations by select voices may eclipse the raw observations deduced from data, coming from a mix of those in public domain as also in-house sources for some,” he said in the post.

Regarding the language and structural similarities in SBI’s report with central bank observations, Tapas said they have duly acknowledged central bank as the source in their tables in the same publication, “stamping its seal of originality”.

The response by SBI’s economist came after some other economists also shared the post by the RBI’s economist. “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,” Economist Ajit Ranade wrote on LinkedIn.

The spat has exposed a rare fissure in India’s otherwise tight-knit policy research ecosystem. While both institutions regularly publish analyses on inflation, growth, and macroeconomic trends, open accusations of copying between the RBI and SBI – or any other organisations of stature- are virtually unheard of. It is learnt that both the institutions have now internally cautioned their researchers to not put out such social media posts after this public spat.

The incident has raised broader questions about research ethics, citation norms, and professional conduct among economists in public institutions — and whether clearer standards are needed to maintain credibility in policy research.