A Bangladeshi press investigation has put a number on a problem researchers there have discussed for years: at least 325 research papers linked to Bangladeshi institutions have been retracted by international journals between 2019 and June 2026, according to a dataset compiled by Prothom Alo and published August 1, 2026. Follow-on reporting through the first week of August has added institution-specific detail, named individual researchers with double-digit retraction counts, and at least two cases involving a named former vice-chancellor and AI-generated content. Together they amount to the most detailed public account yet of how deeply paper-mill activity, fabricated peer review, and (more recently) undisclosed AI-generated content have penetrated a national research system.
This matters beyond Bangladesh. Retraction counts by country and institution are increasingly used, informally and formally, as a signal in funding decisions, co-authorship vetting, and institutional partnership due diligence. A concentrated retraction wave tied to specific departments and named authors is exactly the kind of signal a research office or funder should be able to act on — provided the underlying data is read carefully rather than as an undifferentiated country-level headline.
The count: 325 retractions, 2019–June 2026
Prothom Alo‘s investigation tallied 325 retracted papers connecting to researchers or institutions in Bangladesh over roughly seven years. The institution-level breakdown reported in that investigation includes:
- Daffodil International University — 44 retracted papers
- North South University — 42 retracted papers
- Jahangirnagar University — 32 retracted papers
- United International University — 21 retracted papers
- University of Dhaka — 20 retracted papers per the original dataset (a subsequent count reported by The Daily Observer put the Dhaka University-linked figure at 22)
- University of Chittagong — 11
- University of Rajshahi — 11
- Begum Rokeya University — 11
- World University of Bangladesh — 10
- Noakhali Science and Technology University — 10
- BGC Trust University Bangladesh — 10
Separate reporting has since added two institutions not broken out in the original dataset. Prothom Alo reported that 11 papers affiliated with Jashore University of Science and Technology (JUST) were retracted between May 2024 and May 2026, including two co-authored by JUST’s former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Md Abdul Majid, retracted by the publisher Hindawi in January 2024 after Hindawi found the underlying “research data and findings had been generated without conducting the necessary laboratory experiments” and identified manipulation of the peer-review process — both papers were characterised as products of a commercial paper mill. Separately, 12 papers linked to Islamic University, Kushtia, published between 2011 and April 2026, were retracted over a mix of plagiarism, data inconsistencies, peer-review manipulation, image duplication, disputed authorship, suspected paper-mill involvement, and the use of AI- or computer-generated content, spread across the university’s Computer Science and Engineering, Mathematics, Applied Nutrition and Food Technology, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, and Information and Communication Technology departments.
Named researchers with the largest individual counts
Unlike many retraction-wave stories that stay at the institution level, this dataset names individuals, several with double-digit counts attributed directly to their own authorship record:
- Mohammad Moniruzzaman Khan (North South University, Electrical and Computer Engineering) — 26 retracted papers, the largest individual total reported.
- Md. Kamruzzaman (United International University, Business Administration) — 11 retracted papers.
- Talha Bin Emran (BGC Trust University Bangladesh) — 10 retracted papers.
- Md. Mostafizur Rahman (Jahangirnagar University, Environmental Science) — 10 retracted papers.
- Abdul Kader Mohiuddin (World University of Bangladesh, Pharmacy) — 9 retracted papers.
- Abu Reza Md. Towfiqul Islam (Begum Rokeya University, Disaster Management) — 9 retracted papers.
- Muntasir Murshed (Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies / North South University) — 8 retracted papers.
- Mominur Rahman (Daffodil International University, Pharmacy) — 7 retracted papers.
North South University’s dean, Professor Shazzad Hosain, told Prothom Alo that the volume of near-simultaneous publications from some of these authors “seemed unusual even to the university” — a comment that points to a pattern research-integrity investigators associate with paper mills: batches of superficially plausible papers produced and placed for a fee, often with predatory or compromised journals and manipulated peer review.
What’s driving the wave
Across the reporting, the stated retraction reasons cluster into a small number of recurring categories rather than one single cause:
- Fabricated or reused data. Several retraction notices cite data that could not have come from the experiments described, including, in the JUST/Hindawi case, papers where “the necessary laboratory experiments” were never run.
- Manipulated or fake peer review. A recurring finding across the dataset, consistent with the peer-review-manipulation pattern Retraction Watch and publishers have flagged as a paper-mill signature globally.
- Plagiarism and citation manipulation. Including citation stacking — inserting irrelevant references, typically to inflate a paper’s or journal’s metrics.
- Undisclosed AI- or computer-generated content. Cited explicitly in the Islamic University, Kushtia retractions and increasingly common in paper-mill output generally as generative tools lower the cost of producing superficially plausible manuscripts.
- Commercial paper-mill involvement. Named directly in the JUST case and implicated more broadly by the pattern of near-simultaneous, high-volume output from a small number of authors.
University Grants Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh chairman Professor Mamun Ahmed told Prothom Alo that universities themselves bear primary responsibility for investigating misconduct allegations, with the UGC intervening only if an institution fails to act. Daffodil International University’s research division director, Mahfuza Parveen, said the university would seek to recover funds from researchers where allegations are substantiated. Dhaka University geologist Professor Kazi Matin Uddin Ahmed offered a blunter framing: a retraction, he told the paper, functions as “a red card in football” — a serious, visible sanction rather than a routine correction.
What this means for institutions evaluating Bangladeshi research output
A national retraction count is a blunt instrument if used to blanket-judge an entire country’s research output — the great majority of Bangladeshi researchers and institutions are not implicated in this dataset. But for a research office, funder, or publisher doing due diligence on a specific collaboration, co-authorship, or hire, a cluster like this is exactly the kind of signal that should trigger targeted verification rather than being ignored as noise:
- Check the individual’s retraction and correction history directly, not just their current CV, using the Retraction Watch Database and the journal’s own retraction statements, which typically specify the finding (fabrication, plagiarism, peer-review manipulation, AI-generated content, etc.).
- Treat institutional affiliation as context, not a verdict. Retraction concentration varies sharply by department within the same university in this dataset — engineering and pharmacy authorship patterns look different from the institution-wide average.
- Ask about the review and disclosure processes a candidate or collaborator’s home institution has in place, including who holds a Research Integrity Officer-equivalent role and what its research integrity policy says about paper mills and AI-generated content disclosure.
- Watch for the structural markers publishers and integrity researchers already associate with paper mills: near-simultaneous publication bursts, citation stacking, and journals or special issues with weak or compromised peer review — see CASRAI’s coverage of AI-assisted paper-mill detection and the “research factory” pattern documented elsewhere.
- Expect more disclosures, not fewer, as detection improves. Publishers’ own AI-detection and image-integrity tooling, and frameworks like COPE’s updated retraction guidance on AI and third-party authorship, are actively surfacing cases that would previously have gone unnoticed — a rising retraction count in the short term is at least partly a detection-capacity story, not only a misconduct-volume story.
For readers unfamiliar with the surrounding Bangladeshi research-governance context, CASRAI has separate reference guides on Bangladesh’s University Grants Commission (UGC), the body named above as the primary oversight authority for university-level misconduct investigations, and on BanglaJOL, the country’s main journal-hosting platform.
Coverage and sourcing
This account draws on the original Prothom Alo investigation (published August 1, 2026) and its follow-on report specifically on Jashore University of Science and Technology, The Daily Observer‘s count of Dhaka University-linked retractions, The Financial Express‘s report on Jahangirnagar University’s total, and reporting on the Islamic University, Kushtia retractions. The story has continued to draw domestic editorial attention, including opinion coverage in The Daily Star in the first week of August 2026, reflecting sustained public and academic scrutiny of the underlying causes and of what university and UGC oversight should look like going forward.
