How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.

Jonathan Wittau, Roland Seifert
Author Information
  1. Jonathan Wittau: Institute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Stra��e 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
  2. Roland Seifert: Institute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Stra��e 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Abstract

Scientific fake papers, containing manipulated or completely fabricated data, are a problem that has reached dramatic dimensions. Companies known as paper mills (or more bluntly as "criminal science publishing gangs") produce and sell such fake papers on a large scale. The main drivers of the fake paper flood are the pressure in academic systems and (monetary) incentives to publish in respected scientific journals and sometimes the personal desire for increased "prestige." Published fake papers cause substantial scientific, economic, and social damage. There are numerous information sources that deal with this topic from different points of view. This review aims to provide an overview of these information sources until June 2024. Much more original research with larger datasets is needed, for example on the extent and impact of the fake paper problem and especially on how to detect them, as many findings are based more on small datasets, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. A long-term solution would be to overcome the mantra of publication metrics for evaluating scientists in academia.

Keywords

References

  1. Abalkina A (2023) Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: evidence from a Russia-based paper mill. Learned Publishing 36:689���702 [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1574]
  2. Abalkina A, Bishop D (2023) Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology. Meta-Psychol 7. https://doi.org/10.15626/MP.2022.3422
  3. Abbott A, Cyranoski D, Jones N, Maher B, Schiermeier Q, Van Noorden R (2010) Metrics: do metrics matter? Nature 465(7300):860���862 [PMID: 20559361]
  4. Abritis A, Mccook A (2017) Cash incentives for papers go global. Science 357(6351):541 [PMID: 28798113]
  5. Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452���454 [PMID: 27225100]
  6. Begley C, Ellis L (2012) Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature 483:531���533 [PMID: 22460880]
  7. Beny�� Z, Clementi E, Cremers S, D��vid B, Guzik T, Heusch G, Jarvis M, Orhan K, Seifert R, T��m��r J, Ungvari Z, Ferdinandy P (2024) Scientific integrity in the era of predatory journals: insights from an editors in chief symposium. Br J Pharmacol.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38853481/ . Accessed 17 June 2024
  8. Bhattacharjee Y (2013) The mind of a con man. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html . Accessed 11 Jun 2024
  9. Bhattacharya J, Packalen M (2020) Stagnation and scientific incentives. National Bureau of Economic Research No. w26752. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26752
  10. Bik EM, Casadevall A, Fang FC (2016) The prevalence of inappropriate image duplication in biomedical research publications. Mbio 7(3):e00809-e816 [PMID: 27273827]
  11. Bucci EM (2018) Automatic detection of image manipulations in the biomedical literature. Cell Death Dis 9(3):400 [PMID: 29540667]
  12. Byrne J (2019) We need to talk about systematic fraud. Nature 566(7742):9 [PMID: 30728525]
  13. Byrne JA, Christopher J (2020) Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century���how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills? FEBS Lett 594:583���589 [PMID: 32067229]
  14. Byrne JA, Labb�� C (2017) Striking similarities between publications from China describing single gene knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines. Scientometrics 110:1471���1493 [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-016-2209-6]
  15. Byrne JA, Grima N, Capes-Davis A, Labb�� C (2019) The possibility of systematic research fraud targeting under-studied human genes: causes, consequences, and potential solutions. Biomark Insights 14:1177271919829162 [PMID: 30783377]
  16. Cabanac G, Labb�� C, Magazinov A (2021) Tortured phrases: a dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of Critical Issues Affecting Established Journals. ArXiv:2107.06751. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751
  17. Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Fern��ndez E, Ramos J, Campos-Varela I, P��rez-R��os M (2020) Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. BMJ Glob Health 5(11):e003719 [PMID: 33187964]
  18. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross JS, Ruano-Ravina A, Egilman DS, Fern��ndez E, P��rez-R��os M (2022) Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ 379:e071517 [PMID: 36442874]
  19. Castelvecchi D (2023) Nature retracts controversial superconductivity paper by embattled physicist. Nature 620:14���16
  20. Christopher J (2018) Systematic fabrication of scientific images revealed. FEBS Lett 592(18):3027���3029 [PMID: 30047985]
  21. Christopher J (2021) The raw truth about paper mills. FEBS Lett 595:1751���1757 [PMID: 34180058]
  22. Christos P (2024) Guest post ��� making sense of retractions and tackling research misconduct. The Scholarly Kitchen. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/04/18/guest-post-making-sense-of-retractions-and-tackling-research-misconduct/?informz=1&nbd=dbf10c0a-9e11-4bf3-af3b-d2e383056ded&nbd_source=informz . Accessed 6 May 2024
  23. COPE & STM (2022) Paper mills ��� research report from COPE & STM ��� English. https://publicationethics.org/node/55256 . https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL . Accessed 22 October 2023
  24. Dadkhah M, Oermann MH, Heged��s M, Raman R, D��vid LD (2023) Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090 [DOI: 10.1515/dx-2023-0090]
  25. Dahlberg JE, Mahler CC (2006) The Poehlman case: running away from the truth. Sci Eng Ethics 12(1):157���173 [PMID: 16501657]
  26. Dasenbrock-Gammon N, Snider E, McBride R, Pasan H, Durkee D, Khalvashi-Sutter N, Munasinghe S, Dissanayake SE, Lawler KV, Salamat A, Dias RP (2023) Evidence of near-ambient superconductivity in a N-doped lutetium hydride. Nature 615(7951):244���250 [PMID: 36890373]
  27. Desaire H, Chua AE, Isom M, Jarosova R, Hua D (2023a) Distinguishing academic science writing from humans or ChatGPT with over 99% accuracy using off-the-shelf machine learning tools. Cell Rep Phys Sci 4(6):101426 [PMID: 37426542]
  28. Desaire H, Chua AE, Kim MG, Hua D (2023b) Accurately detecting AI text when ChatGPT is told to write like a chemist. Cell Rep Phys Sci 4(11):101672 [PMID: 38078148]
  29. Diaba-Nuhoho P, Amponsah-Offeh M (2021) Reproducibility and research integrity: the role of scientists and institutions. BMC Res Notes 14:451 [PMID: 34906213]
  30. Durkee D, Dasenbrock-Gammon N, Smith GA, Snider E, Smith D, Childs C, Kimber SAJ, Lawler KV, Dias RP, Salamat A (2021) Colossal density-driven resistance response in the negative charge transfer insulator MnS. Phys Rev Lett 127(1):016401 [PMID: 34270285]
  31. Else H (2019) What universities can learn from one of science���s biggest frauds. Nature 570(7761):287���288 [PMID: 31213697]
  32. Else H (2022) Paper-mill detector put to the test in push to stamp out fake science. Nature 612(7940):386���387 [PMID: 36460917]
  33. Else H, Van Noorden R (2021) The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature 591:516���519 [PMID: 33758408]
  34. Foster JG, Rzhetsky A, Evans JA (2015) Tradition and innovation in scientists��� research strategies. Am Sociol Rev 80(5):875���908 [DOI: 10.1177/0003122415601618]
  35. Fox LC, Seifert R (2024) Arbitrariness of bibliometric parameters: a case study on leading scientists of the German Society for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (DGPT). Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-024-03195-4 [DOI: 10.1007/s00210-024-03195-4]
  36. Frederickson RM, Herzog RW (2021) Keeping them honest: fighting fraud in academic publishing. Mol Ther 29(3):889���890 [PMID: 33581045]
  37. Garisto D (2023) ���A very disturbing picture���: another retraction imminent for controversial physicist. Nature 620(7972):14���16 [PMID: 37491414]
  38. Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H (2011) Wakefield���s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ 342:c7452 [PMID: 21209060]
  39. Gopalakrishna G, Ter Riet G, Vink G, Stoop I, Wicherts JM, Bouter LM (2022) Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: a survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLoS ONE 17(2):e0263023 [PMID: 35171921]
  40. Hackett R, Kelly S (2020) Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills. Biol Open 9(10):bio056556 [PMID: 33115756]
  41. Heck S, Bianchini F, Souren NY, Wilhelm C, Ohl Y, Plass C (2021) Fake data, paper mills, and their authors: The International Journal of Cancer reacts to this threat to scientific integrity. Int J Cancer 149:492���493 [PMID: 33905542]
  42. Hopf H, Krief A, Mehta G, Matlin SA (2019) Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. Roy Soc Open Sci 6(5):190161 [DOI: 10.1098/rsos.190161]
  43. Hvistendahl M (2013) China���s publication bazaar. Science 342(6162):1035���1039 [PMID: 24288313]
  44. Jones N (2024) How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature 626(8000):697���698 [PMID: 38347210]
  45. Korte SM, van der Heyden MA (2017) Preventing publication of falsified and fabricated data: roles of scientists, editors, reviewers, and readers. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 69(2):65���70 [PMID: 27851697]
  46. Kumar V, Upadhyay S, Medhi B (2009) Impact of the impact factor in biomedical research: its use and misuse. Singapore Med J 50(8):752���755 [PMID: 19710969]
  47. Kupferschmidt K (2018) Researcher at the center of an epic fraud remains an enigma to those who exposed him. Science 80. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aav1079
  48. Labb�� C, Grima N, Gautier T, Favier B, Byrne JA (2019) Semi-automated fact-checking of nucleotide sequence reagents in biomedical research publications: the Seek & Blastn tool. PloS One 14(3):e0213266. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213266
  49. Lawrence JM, Meyerowitz-Katz G, Heathers JAJ, Brown NJL, Sheldrick KA (2021) The lesson of ivermectin: meta-analyses based on summary data alone are inherently unreliable. Nat Med 27(11):1853���1854 [PMID: 34552263]
  50. Lesn�� S, Koh MT, Kotilinek L, Kayed R, Glabe CG, Yang A, Gallagher M, Ashe KH (2006) A specific amyloid-beta protein assembly in the brain impairs memory. Nature 440(7082):352���357 [PMID: 16541076]
  51. Liverpool L (2023) AI intensifies fight against ���paper mills��� that churn out fake research. Nature 618(7964):222���223 [PMID: 37258739]
  52. Mallapaty S (2024) China conducts first nationwide review of retractions and research misconduct. Nature 626(8000):700���701 [PMID: 38347207]
  53. Marcus A (2018) A scientist���s fraudulent studies put patients at risk. Science 362(6413):394 [PMID: 30361354]
  54. Mega ER (2020) Latin America���s embrace of an unproven COVID treatment is hindering drug trials. Nature 586(7830):481���482 [PMID: 33077974]
  55. Miller AN, Taylor SG, Bedeian AG (2011) Publish or perish: academic life as management faculty live it. Career Dev Int 16(5):422���445 [DOI: 10.1108/13620431111167751]
  56. Miyakawa T (2020) No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Mol Brain 13(1):24 [PMID: 32079532]
  57. Oksvold MP (2016) Incidence of data duplications in a randomly selected pool of life science publications. Sci Eng Ethics 22(2):487���496 [PMID: 26065681]
  58. Palus S (2015) Diederik Stapel now has 58 retractions. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2015/12/08/diederik-stapel-now-has-58-retractions/ . Accessed 11 Jun 2024
  59. Park Y, West RA, Pathmendra P, Favier B, Stoeger T, Capes-Davis A, Cabanac G, Labb�� C, Byrne JA (2022) Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences. Life Sci Alliance 5(4):e202101203 [PMID: 35022248]
  60. Pathmendra P, Park Y, Enguita FJ, Byrne JA (2024) Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 397(7):5049���5066
  61. Piller C (2022) Blots on a field? Science 377(6604):358���363 [PMID: 35862524]
  62. Popp M, Stegemann M, Metzendorf MI, Gould S, Kranke P, Meybohm P, Skoetz N, Weibel S (2022) Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7(7):CD015017
  63. Qi C, Zhang J, Luo P (2020) Emerging concern of scientific fraud: deep learning and image manipulation. BioRxiv 2020.11.24.395319
  64. Quan W, Chen B, Shu F (2017) Publish or impoverish: an investigation of the monetary reward system of science in China (1999���2016). Aslib J Inf Manag 69:486���502 [DOI: 10.1108/AJIM-01-2017-0014]
  65. Rawat S, Meena S (2014) Publish or perish: where are we heading? J Res Med Sci 19(2):87���89 [PMID: 24778659]
  66. Sabel BA, Knaack E, Gigerenzer G, Bilc M (2023) Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production. medRxiv 2023.05.06.23289563
  67. Sabel BA, Seifert R (2021) How criminal science publishing gangs damage the genesis of knowledge and technology���a call to action to restore trust. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 394:2147���2151 [DOI: 10.1007/s00210-021-02158-3]
  68. Samuel S, K��nig-Ries B (2021) Understanding experiments and research practices for reproducibility: an exploratory study. PeerJ 9:e11140 [PMID: 33976964]
  69. Seifert R (2021a) How Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Archives of Pharmacology deals with fraudulent papers from paper mills. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 394(3):431���436 [DOI: 10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8]
  70. Seifert R (2021b) Entschlossen handeln gegen systematische Forschungsf��lschung durch Paper Mills. Laborjournal. https://www.laborjournal.de/rubric/essays/essays2021/e21_08.php . Accessed 27 Dec 2023
  71. Shen H (2020) Meet this super-spotter of duplicated images in science papers. Nature 581(7807):132���136 [PMID: 32405024]
  72. Snider E, Dasenbrock-Gammon N, McBride R, Debessai M, Vindana H, Vencatasamy K, Lawler KV, Salamat A, Dias RP (2020) Room-temperature superconductivity in a carbonaceous sulfur hydride. Nature 586(7829):373���377 [PMID: 33057222]
  73. STM - International Association of STM Publishers (2022) Image alteration and duplication in scientific publications - Module 1. [video]. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taHMZgh-9Q . Accessed 16 Dec 2023
  74. STM - International Association of STM Publishers (May 22, 2023) Image alteration and duplication in scientific publications | Module 2. [video]. Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UddQodWU__8 . Accessed 16 Dec 2023
  75. Tang BL (2024) Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct. Res Ethics 20(2):272���287 [DOI: 10.1177/17470161231221258]
  76. Teixeira da Silva JA, Daly T (2024) Against ���silent��� retractions in neuroscience. Eur J Neurosci 59(10):2556���2562 [PMID: 38558202]
  77. Tian M, Su Y, Ru X (2016) Perish or publish in China: pressures on young Chinese Scholars to publish in internationally indexed journals. Publications 4(2):9 [DOI: 10.3390/publications4020009]
  78. Van der Heyden MAG (2021) The 1-h fraud detection challenge. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 394(8):1633���1640 [PMID: 34244820]
  79. Van Noorden R (2021) Hundreds of gibberish papers still lurk in the scientific literature. Nature 594(7862):160���161 [PMID: 34045760]
  80. Van Noorden R (2022) Journals adopt AI to spot duplicated images in manuscripts. Nature 601(7891):14���15 [PMID: 34931057]
  81. Van Noorden R (2023a) More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - a new record. Nature 624(7992):479���481 [PMID: 38087103]
  82. Van Noorden R (2023b) How big is science���s fake-paper problem? Nature 623(7987):466���467 [PMID: 37949983]
  83. Van Noorden R (2023c) Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? Nature 619(7970):454���458
  84. Wade N, Sang-Hun C (2006) Researcher faked evidence of human cloning, Koreans report. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/science/10clone.html?_r=0 . Accessed 11 Jun 2024
  85. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Valentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (1998) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103):637���641 [PMID: 9500320]
  86. Walker RL, Sykes L, Hemmelgarn BR, Quan H (2010) Authors��� opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment. BMC Med Educ 10:21 [PMID: 20214826]
  87. Wang L, Zhou L, Yang W, Yu R (2022) Deepfakes: a new threat to image fabrication in scientific publications? Patterns (NY) 3(5):100509 [DOI: 10.1016/j.patter.2022.100509]
  88. Wittau J, Seifert R (2023) Metadata analysis of retracted fake papers in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Archives of Pharmacology. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 397(6):3995���4011
  89. Wittau J, Celik S, Kacprowski T, Deserno TM (2023) Fake paper identification in the pool of withdrawn and rejected manuscripts submitted to Naunyn���Schmiedeberg���s Archives of Pharmacology. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg���s Arch Pharmacol 397(4):2171���2181
  90. Zhang X, Wang P (2024) Research misconduct in China: towards an institutional analysis. Research Ethics 1���21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17470161241247720 . Accessed 17 June 2024

Grants

  1. Promotionsprogramm DigiStrucMed 2020_EKPK.20/Else Kr��ner-Fresenius-Stiftung

MeSH Term

Humans
Scientific Misconduct
Publishing
Periodicals as Topic
Deception
Information Sources

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0fakepaperpapersdataprobleminformationsourcesScientificscientificreviewdatasetssolutioncontainingmanipulatedcompletelyfabricatedreacheddramaticdimensionsCompaniesknownmillsbluntly"criminalsciencepublishinggangs"produceselllargescalemaindriversfloodare thepressureacademicsystemsmonetaryincentivespublishrespectedjournalssometimespersonaldesireincreased"prestige"PublishedcausesubstantialeconomicsocialdamagenumerousdealtopicdifferentpointsviewaimsprovideoverviewJune2024Muchoriginalresearchlargerneededexampleextentimpactespeciallydetectmanyfindingsbasedsmallanecdotalevidenceassumptionslong-termovercomemantrapublicationmetricsevaluatingscientistsacademiafightpapers:importantstepstowardsFabricatedFakeManipulatedPapermillResearchfraudintegrity

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)