Misinterpretations and plagiarism in a publication about Himalayan Impatiens: polemics with the paper of Singh R.K. et al. 2021
Rajib Gogoi 1, A-F  
,   Wojciech Adamowski 2, A,C-E
,   Norbu Sherpa 1, B,D
,   Ashutosh Sharma 3, B
,   Souravjyoti Borah 4, B
More details
Hide details
Botanical Survey of India, Sikkim Himalayan Regional Centre, P.O. Rajbhawan, Gangtok – 737103, Sikkim, India
Białowieża Geobotanical Station, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, Sportowa 19, 17-230 Białowieża, Poland
The University of Trans-disciplinary Health Sciences and Technology (TDU), #74/2, Jarakabande Kaval, Post Attur via Yelahanka, Bengaluru – 560064, India
Department of Botany, Gauhati University, Guwahati – 781014, Assam, India
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article
Rajib Gogoi   

Botanical Survey of India, Sikkim Himalayan Regional Centre, P.O. Rajbhawan, Gangtok – 737103, Sikkim, India
Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 2021;(63)
In the publication “Typifications, new combinations and new synonyms in Indian Impatiens (Balsaminaceae)” by Singh, R. K. et al. (2021), the authors used pseudoscientific theoretical background, utilized material collected by other persons without citing the source of data in support of their claims, and made serious errors in the determination and delimitationof Impatiens taxa occuring in Himalayas and adjacent areas. They proposed new combinations and statuses without sufficient field and literature studies and failed to show convincing evidences in their treatments. Their documentation lacks important details, like authorship of the published pictures, locations and dates of pictures, or measurements of plant parts; the whole documentation has geographically biased gaps – in case of Western Himalayan or Sikkimese taxa, there is almost no originalillustrative material. Finally, they falsely claimed extensive field studies in Western Himalaya. This paper reinstates 19 speciesand 1 variety synonymised by Singh et al. (2021) with scientific evidences based on illustrations from types and colour photographsfrom fresh collections.