RBI vs SBI: The Great LinkedIn Smackdown (now with extra Ecowrap)
- Rahul Anand
- 4 hours ago
- 3 min read
If you ever wondered what happens when two of India’s most buttoned-up institutions discover “content strategy,” behold: an RBI economist says SBI’s research note looks a lot like RBI’s own report—structure, language, even charts—and the debate detonates right on LinkedIn. Economists, assemble (and please bring your Chicago Manual of Style).
The Spark Notes (no, not that kind of notes)
The allegation: RBI economist Sarthak Gulati posted on LinkedIn that SBI’s Ecowrap reproduced major parts of RBI’s Monetary Policy Report (MPR) without attribution—down to paragraphs and key visuals. He flagged specific examples spanning mid-year and October editions.
The rebuttal: SBI Research (economist Dr. Tapas Parida speaking) says: we used public data (MOSPI/NSO), updated it, acknowledged RBI among sources in tables, and our framework stands on its own. Similarities happen when everyone analyzes the same datasets.
The vibe: A rare, unusually public spat between folks who typically fight only with models and residuals. Media noticed quickly.
If LinkedIn Had an Umpire
Ball 1 – RBI’s appeal: “That’s our paragraph, your honor.” The post claims text-level similarity and mirroring of report structure—basically, the academic equivalent of wearing the same outfit to the conference plenary.
Ball 2 – SBI’s defense: “Same data, different day.” They argue economics isn’t pottery class—everybody touches MOSPI clay. They say they cited RBI/NSO in tables and refreshed numbers with newer releases.
Third-umpire decision: Not out on data, review pending on prose/structure. (Data can be public domain; phrasing and figure layouts usually aren’t.) Media scorecards mark it as an extraordinary, high-profile tussle.
Plagiarism Bingo (Research Edition)
“Source: MOSPI” with no series IDs
Identical section headings that mysteriously love each other
Chart titles that feel déjà vu with different fonts
Acknowledgements that credit “Central Bank” but skip page/figure numbers
Bonus square: quoting poetry in a quant thread (yes, that apparently happened)
Five in a row? Congratulations, you’ve earned… peer review.
A Quick Field Guide To Citing Like A Grown-Up
Cite the report, not just the ministry. If your section outline, decomposition method, or figure design riffs on RBI’s MPR, say “Adapted from RBI MPR (Month/Year, Chapter X, Figure Y).” Not “Data: MOSPI.”
Give coordinates. Add series names/IDs, base year, and release date. Economists love breadcrumbs more than Hansel and Gretel.
Paraphrase for real. Rewrite from first principles—change framing, examples, and ordering. Swapping synonyms is not paraphrasing; it’s karaoke. (A fine art, but still karaoke.)
Boxed items aren’t communal property. If you re-use a boxed analysis, label it clearly or link it. RBI said those “boxes” appeared as if original elsewhere. That’s a citation red flag.
Show your math. Publish your equations or regression spec, and explain departures from the source methodology. SBI says their framework is transparent—great, make that transparency idiot-proof.
Macroecon Meets WWE (Respectfully)
RBI’s finisher: The Monetary Policy Piledriver—a move where you cite chapter and verse.
SBI’s counter: The MOSPI Moonsault—public data from the top rope, updated mid-air.
Foreign object in the ring: A stray “public domain” argument (legal ≠ literary free-for-all).
Ring-side chant: “Foot-notes! Foot-notes!” (The crowd is mostly grad students.)Media ring-announcers confirm: yes, this bout is very much real.
What Each Side Could Do Tomorrow (Low-Drama, High-Signal)
For Team RBI
Post a side-by-side diff with highlighted passages/figures and precise citations to MPR pages. That pushes the conversation from vibes to verifiables.
For Team SBI
Publish a sources & methods appendix: list MOSPI/NSO tables, release dates, series IDs, and a “literature & attributions” table (e.g., “Inflation decomposition adapted from RBI MPR Oct 2025, Ch.2, Fig. 2.4; updated with MOSPI CPI release dd-mm-yyyy”). It’s the academic equivalent of turning on the lights.
For Everyone Else
Install a pre-publication checklist: (a) originality scan for prose, (b) template similarity check for charts, (c) bibliography completeness test. Yes, this is boring. That’s why it works.
Frequently Asked (Awkward) Questions
Q: But the data are public, so…?A: Correct—and that settles only half the case. Facts can be public; phrasing, narrative structure, box-outs, and figure designs can still be someone’s work product. That’s where attribution lives (or dies).
Q: Isn’t similarity inevitable in econ?A: Convergence on conclusions? Sure. Convergence on paragraphs and layouts? That needs a footnote (or three).
Q: Who’s “winning”?A: The comments section. Also, journalism—because this level of transparency is rare and useful.
The Scholarly TL;DR
RBI economist alleges that SBI’s Ecowrap tracked RBI MPR too closely in text and visuals, without clear attribution.
SBI says the analysis is independent, rooted in public MOSPI data, with RBI acknowledged in tables; they offered a philosophical (and statistical) defense on LinkedIn.
Regardless of intent, the clean way forward is granular citations, explicit “adapted from” labels, series IDs, and reproducible methods—so the next controversy has to fight for air, not oxygen.
The above write-up is derived from a LinkedIn post discussing the RBI–SBI research attributions debate. Reference:
Comments