You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:

Only users who are logged in using ORCID can make a change or add a contribution. Please login here.

Back

Edit a theme

We invite you to share your knowledge and write about a theme which you find relevant, interesting or controversial. You can share your own expertise, present your new initiative, write a commentary about one of the resources hosted on The Embassy, or simply describe a topic that you think should be shared with the research community.

Before you submit, please be aware of our community guidelines.

Theme

Paper mills pose significant threats to the integrity and trustworthiness of academic research, and to the scholarly record. The possibility that hundreds, if not thousands, of ‘fake’ papers are published in academic journals seriously compromises the trust that scholars and the public have in published research. Paper mills also contribute to resource waste, as the investigation and retraction of fake papers is a costly and time consuming process for publishers. Moreover, more money could be wasted if fake papers are used to obtain funding for further research, and in the case of clinical research the health of patients may be put at risk.<ref>COPE, & STM. (2022). Paper Mills—Research report from COPE & STM. Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL</nowiki></ref>

Paper mills present a growing problem for the scientific community, with one estimate in 2022 suggesting that 2% of paper submissions across all scientific journals are likely to come from paper mills; in some subject areas, this figure is likely to be much higher .<ref>Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature, 623(7987), 466–467. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x</nowiki></ref> Estimates made using the Paper Mill Alarm indicate that the number of articles bearing a close textual similarity to paper mill products have been steadily rising since 2000.<ref>Van Noorden, R. (2023). How big is science’s fake-paper problem? Nature, 623(7987), 466–467. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03464-x</nowiki></ref> There is also concern that the proliferation of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools will exacerbate this problem, by providing paper mills with the ability to generate new papers and avoid detection techniques at greater speed.<ref>Sanderson, K. (2024). Science’s fake-paper problem: High-profile effort will tackle paper mills. Nature, 626(7997), 17–18. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00159-9</nowiki></ref>

Paper mills can thrive because of the pressure for researchers to publish in order to advance their careers. Publication may be necessary to obtain their doctorate for example, or to be considered eligible for a promotion by their institution. For example, the Beijing municipal health authority had a policy in place as recently as 2021 requiring attending physicians in non-research roles to meet a minimum number of first-author publications in professional journals in order to gain promotion.<ref>Else, H., & Van Noorden, R. (2021). The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature, 591(7851), 516–519. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5</nowiki></ref> In other cases, researchers may make use of paper mills to boost their chances of obtaining research funding when applying for a grant.<ref>COPE, & STM. (2022). Paper Mills—Research report from COPE & STM. Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL</nowiki></ref>
<references />

In their 2022 report on the problem of paper mills, COPE and STM concluded that the challenge posed by  paper mills can only be overcome through urgent collective effort from all stakeholders in research.<ref>COPE, & STM. (2022). Paper Mills—Research report from COPE & STM. Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL</nowiki></ref> They made a number of recommendations for long-term actions that can be undertaken by different stakeholders in research:

*'''For Editors:''' ensure editors and editorial staff are aware of the problem of paper mills, and train them to identify them as they are submitted.
*'''For Institutions and Funding organisations:''' address the perverse incentives involved in academic publication so that researchers do not feel the need to use paper mills. Avoid inappropriate criteria relating to publications for employees and funding recipients working in non-research roles.
*'''For Publishers:''' review the retraction process to take into account the unique features of paper mills, and investigate options for ensuring that retraction notices are added to all available versions of a paper. Continue investment into tools and systems to detect paper mill papers as they are submitted.
*'''For all:''' Investigate protocols that can be put in place to prevent paper mills from succeeding in their goals.<ref>COPE, & STM. (2022). Paper Mills—Research report from COPE & STM. Committee on Publication Ethics and STM. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.24318/jtbG8IHL</nowiki></ref>

Since the publication of the COPE and STM report, there has been further action taken towards achieving the collective effort described above including the formation of United2Act - a joint venture between academic publishers, research organisations, and funders, like the European Research Council. In January 2024, the group released a statement describing 5 key areas of action they will take. These include:

#Improve education and awareness of the problem.
#Conduct detailed research into paper mills.
#Improve post-publication corrections.
#Support the development of tools to verify the identities of authors, editors and reviewers.
#Ensure that the groups across publishing that are tackling the issue communicate.<ref>United2Act launches action against paper mills. (n.d.). COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics. Retrieved 3 October 2024, from <nowiki>https://publicationethics.org/about/press/paper-mills</nowiki></ref>

'''For Journals'''

Scientific journal Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology was targeted with papers produced by paper mills in 2020, resulting in the retraction of 10 scientific papers in 2021.<ref>Seifert, R. (2021). How Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology deals with fraudulent papers from paper mills. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, 394(3), 431–436. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8</nowiki></ref> Following this experience, the journal will adopt the following measures:

*Request of institutional email addresses. The corresponding author should provide an institutional email address.
*Request of supplemental original source data (raw data, original data, individual data points) presented in tables and figures in a generally readable format. Excel files are preferred. Pdf and Prism files are acceptable as well. Supplemental data must be cited in the main text. These data will be made available to the reviewers and published if the paper is accepted.
*Request of supplemental immunoblot data. Specifically, full-length immunoblots with molecular mass markers are requested. Supplemental immunoblot data must be cited in the text. These data will be made available to the reviewers and published if the paper is accepted.
*Authors must include the following statement in the section “Authors Contributions”: The authors declare that all data were generated in-house and that no paper mill was used.<ref>Seifert, R. (2021). How Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology deals with fraudulent papers from paper mills. Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology, 394(3), 431–436. <nowiki>https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8</nowiki></ref>

Papers that do not meet these requirements are automatically rejected, but can be accepted later if the guidelines are met.

These represent just some of the ways that scientific journals can try to tackle this problem.
<references />

Related To

Edit Theme: Theme:B00b6a77-94d1-4a35-889f-f0e7a6e2f2fd

Edit a theme