It is reported that Professor Ghulam Nabi reviewed and rejected for publication a manuscript submitted by another doctor but then passed on unpublished excerpts to one of his students who copied over a quarter of the work. 

The student’s work was published in the Urological Oncology Journal but then peer reviewed by the original author who complained to the editor. 

Lack of candour

The MPTS found Prof Nabi’s emails, when challenged by the editor “misleading”.  Whilst it was acknowledged that Prof Nabi is well-respected and regarded as a man of “good character”, the MPTS said his actions “deviated from accepted ethical standards” 

The Courier reported the MPTS’ ruling stating:

“It [the tribunal] was concerned that Professor Nabi had not reflected upon the aspects of this case which the tribunal found were misleading and a lack of candour.

“Professor Nabi failed to own up that the plagiarism occurred from his group early on in the informal and formal investigatory process, denying that he intended to mislead.

“Whilst the tribunal accepted that Professor Nabi was a busy clinician and academic at the time of these events, this did not detract from the fact that his actions were misleading, as found by the tribunal.”

“However, the tribunal considered that there were some mitigating features such as the significant passage of time since these events, with no further concerns in this regard.

 “Professor Nabi was, prior to these events, and as is supported by the testimonial evidence, regarded as a man of good character.

“The testimonials made clear he is highly regarded by his colleagues. During his evidence Professor Nabi conceded that there were some areas of his practice which required improvement, such as the use of his English language in correspondence.

“Professor Nabi had admitted parts of the allegation and had apologised for those parts of the allegation that he had admitted.”


The tribunal determined Prof Nabi’s fitness to practise is impaired and determined to impose conditions on his registration for a period of nine months.

He can continue in all his current roles.

The conditions include developing a personal development plan to meet “deficiencies” in areas of his practice.

The tribunal also directed a review hearing to take place.

Follow Us