https://www.science.org/content/article/fake-scientific-papers-are-alarmingly-common Advertisement * * news * careers * commentary * Journals * Covid-19 Science Science * * * Log in * Become A Member [science] science [sciadv] science advances [sciimmunol] science immunology [scirobotics] science robotics [signaling] science signaling [stm] science translational medicine [spj-cover-1672180580773] science partner journals Quick Search anywhere Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Quick Search in Journals Enter Search Term[ ] Searching: Anywhere AnywhereScienceScience AdvancesScience ImmunologyScience Robotics Science SignalingScience Translational Medicine Advanced Search Search Trending Terms: * covid-19 * climate * monkeypox * abortion * perovskite Log In Become A Member Quick Search anywhere Enter Search Term[ ] science.org * Custom publishing * collections * videos * podcasts * blogs * visualizations * prizes and awards * authors & reviewers * librarians * advertisers * about * help * * * * * * AAAS Logo * Terms of Service * Privacy Policy * Accessibility * News Home * All News * ScienceInsider * News Features GET OUR E-ALERTS HomeNewsAll NewsFake scientific papers are alarmingly common Back To All News * News * Scientific Community Fake scientific papers are alarmingly common But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia's "publish or perish" culture * 9 May 2023 * 4:45 PM * ByJeffrey Brainard illustration of paper flying out of a gumball machine SARA GIRONI CARNEVALE Share: * Twitter * Linked In * Facebook * Reddit * Wechat * Email issue cover image Table of contents A version of this story appeared in Science, Vol 380, Issue 6645. Download PDF When neuropsychologist Bernhard Sabel put his new fake-paper detector to work, he was "shocked" by what it found. After screening some 5000 papers, he estimates up to 34% of neuroscience papers published in 2020 were likely made up or plagiarized; in medicine, the figure was 24%. Both numbers, which he and colleagues report in a medRxiv preprint posted on 8 May, are well above levels they calculated for 2010--and far larger than the 2% baseline estimated in a 2022 publishers' group report. "It is just too hard to believe" at first, says Sabel of Otto von Guericke University Magdeburg and editor-in-chief of Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience. It's as if "somebody tells you 30% of what you eat is toxic." His findings underscore what was widely suspected: Journals are awash in a rising tide of scientific manuscripts from paper mills--secretive businesses that allow researchers to pad their publication records by paying for fake papers or undeserved authorship. "Paper mills have made a fortune by basically attacking a system that has had no idea how to cope with this stuff," says Dorothy Bishop, a University of Oxford psychologist who studies fraudulent publishing practices. A 2 May announcement from the publisher Hindawi underlined the threat: It shut down four of its journals it found were "heavily compromised" by articles from paper mills. Sabel's tool relies on just two indicators--authors who use private, noninstitutional email addresses, and those who list an affiliation with a hospital. It isn't a perfect solution, because of a high false-positive rate. Other developers of fake-paper detectors, who often reveal little about how their tools work, contend with similar issues. Still, the detectors raise hopes for gaining the advantage over paper mills, which churn out bogus manuscripts containing text, data, and images partly or wholly plagiarized or fabricated, often massaged by ghost writers. Some papers are endorsed by unrigorous reviewers solicited by the authors. Such manuscripts threaten to corrupt the scientific literature, misleading readers and potentially distorting systematic reviews. The recent advent of artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT has amplified the concern. To fight back, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM), representing 120 publishers, is leading an effort called the Integrity Hub to develop new tools. STM is not revealing much about the detection methods, to avoid tipping off paper mills. "There is a bit of an arms race," says Joris van Rossum, the Integrity Hub's product director. He did say one reliable sign of a fake is referencing many retracted papers; another involves manuscripts and reviews emailed from internet addresses crafted to look like those of legitimate institutions. Twenty publishers--including the largest, such as Elsevier, Springer Nature, and Wiley--are helping develop the Integrity Hub tools, and 10 of the publishers are expected to use a paper mill detector the group unveiled in April. STM also expects to pilot a separate tool this year that detects manuscripts simultaneously sent to more than one journal, a practice considered unethical and a sign they may have come from paper mills. Such large-scale cooperation is meant to improve on what publishers were doing individually and to share tools across the publishing industry, van Rossum says. "It will never be a [fully] automated process," he says. Rather, the tools are like "a spam filter ... you still want to go through your spam filter every week" to check for erroneously flagged legitimate content. STM hasn't yet generated figures on accuracy or false-positive rates because the project is too new. But catching as many fakes as possible typically produces more false positives. Sabel's tool correctly flagged nearly 90% of fraudulent or retracted papers in a test sample. However, it marked up to 44% of genuine papers as fake, so results still need to be confirmed by skilled reviewers. Other paper mill detectors typically have a similar trade-off, says Adam Day, founding director of a startup called Clear Skies who consulted with STM on the Integrity Hub. But without some reliance on automated methods, "You either have to spot check randomly, or you use your own human prejudice to choose what to check. And that's not generally very fair." Scrutinizing suspect papers can be time-consuming: In 2021, Springer Nature's postpublication review of about 3000 papers suspected of coming from paper mills required up to 10 part- and full-time staffers, said Chris Graf, the company's director of research integrity, at a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing about paper mills in July 2022. (Springer Nature publishes about 400,000 papers annually.) Newly updated guidelines for journals issued in April may help ease the workload. They may decide to reject or retract batches of papers suspected of having been produced by a paper mill, even if the evidence is circumstantial, says the nonprofit Committee on Publication Ethics, which is funded by publishers. Its previous guidelines encouraged journals to ask authors of each suspicious paper for more information, which can trigger a lengthy back and forth. Some outsiders wonder whether journals will make good on promises to crack down. Publishers embracing gold open access--under which journals collect a fee from authors to make their papers immediately free to read when published--have a financial incentive to publish more, not fewer, papers. They have "a huge conflict of interest" regarding paper mills, says Jennifer Byrne of the University of Sydney, who has studied how paper mills have doctored cancer genetics data. The "publish or perish" pressure that institutions put on scientists is also an obstacle. "We want to think about engaging with institutions on how to take away perhaps some of the [professional] incentives which can have these detrimental effects," van Rossum says. Such pressures can push clinicians without research experience to turn to paper mills, Sabel adds, which is why hospital affiliations can be a red flag. Publishers should also welcome help from outsiders to improve the technology supporting paper mill detectors, although this will require transparency about how they work, Byrne says. "When tools are developed behind closed doors, no one can criticize or investigate how they perform," she says. A more public, broad collaboration would likely strengthen them faster than paper mills could keep up, she adds. Day sees some hope: Flagging journals suspected of being targeted by paper mills can quickly deter additional fraudulent submissions. He points to his analysis of journals that the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) put on a public list because of suspicions they contained paper mill papers. His company's Papermill Alarm detector showed that before the CAS list came out, suspicious papers made up the majority of some journals' content; afterward, the proportion dropped to nearly zero within months (see chart). (Papermill Alarm flags potentially fraudulent papers based on telltale patterns revealed when a paper mill repeatedly submits papers; the company does not publicly disclose what these signs are.) Journals could drive a similar crash by using automated detectors to flag suspicious manuscripts, nudging paper mills to take them elsewhere, Day says. Some observers worry paper mill papers will merely migrate to lower impact journals with fewer resources to detect them. But if many journals act collectively, the viability of the entire paper mill industry could shrink. It's not necessary to catch every fake paper, Day says. "It's about having practices which are resistant to their business model." Paper mill clampdown After a 2020 report named journals suspected of containing paper mill papers, an analysis using the Papermill Alarm automated detector found that the number of such papers in one of those journals (which the analysis did not name) declined quickly and sharply. Columns show the number of papers by month. chart showing papers flagged as suspicious or not by Papermill Alarm automated detector (Graphic) D. An-Pham/Science; (Data) Adam Day/ Clear Skies Correction, 10 May, 11:35 a.m.: This article has been updated to correctly describe the false-positive rate generated by the two indicators of fake papers presented in the preprint by Bernhard Sabel and colleagues. --------------------------------------------------------------------- doi: 10.1126/science.adi6523 Relevant tags: Scientific Community About the author Jeffrey Brainard Jeffrey Brainard mailTwitter Author Jeffrey Brainard joined Science as an associate news editor in 2017. He covers an array of topics and edits the In Brief section in the print magazine. --------------------------------------------------------------------- More from news View of the ionosphere wrapping around Earth 12 May 2023 Earth's upper atmosphere is a sensitive explosion detector By * Jonathan O'Callaghan Aboriginal petroglyphs are seen in foreground as gas flares from a gas processing plant in background 12 May 2023 World's largest collection of ancient rock art threatened by Australia's petrochemical plants By * Dennis Normile Jonathan Pruitt displays a bottle with specimens inside it 11 May 2023 University investigation found prominent spider biologist fabricated, falsified data By * Claudia Lopez Lloreda View more Got a tip for Science's news department? Connect ScienceInsider Aboriginal petroglyphs are seen in foreground as gas flares from a gas processing plant in background 12 May 2023By * Dennis Normile World's largest collection of ancient rock art threatened by Australia's petrochemical plants Jonathan Pruitt displays a bottle with specimens inside it 11 May 2023By * Claudia Lopez Lloreda University investigation found prominent spider biologist fabricated, falsified data A colorized transmission electron micrograph of mpox particles 11 May 2023By * Meredith Wadman WHO ends mpox emergency Computer illustration of DNA molecules 11 May 2023By * Robert F. Service Benchtop DNA printers are coming soon--and biosecurity experts are worried View more Sifter peanuts 11 May 2023By * Jennifer Couzin-Frankel Skin patch tackles peanut allergies Telomeres 5 May 2023By * Claudia Lopez Lloreda Tweaking cells to defy aging could come with cancerous consequences moth hovering around lightbulb 1 May 2023By * Kate Hull For flying insects, night light hampers upright flight one hand holding someone else's two hands 18 Apr 2023By * Claudia Lopez Lloreda A new test can pick out Parkinson's disease patients before their symptoms begin View more RecommendedClose In DepthApril 2015 Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers News FocusApril 2006 Even Retracted Papers Endure [si-robotty] 27 Mar 2015By * John Bohannon Hoax-detecting software spots fake papers [si-retract] 1 Oct 2012By * Jennifer Couzin-Frankel Misconduct, Not Mistakes, Causes Most Retractions of Scientific Papers Subscribe to News from Science Don't yet have access? Subscribe to News from Science for full access to breaking news and analysis on research and science policy. Subscribe SIGN UP FOR NEWS FROM SCIENCE DAILY HEADLINES Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Sign up Support nonprofit science journalism Help News from Science publish trustworthy, high-impact stories about research and the people who shape it. Please make a tax-deductible gift today. Donate Not Now [logo-dark] x (*) $50 ( ) $75 ( ) $100 ( ) Other $ [ ] Please enter a valid email (*) Single ( ) Monthly Email: [ ] Please enter a valid email Country: [United States ] [ ] I also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events. Donate now Support nonprofit science journalism If we've learned anything from the COVID-19 pandemic, it's that we cannot wait for a crisis to respond. Science and AAAS are working tirelessly to provide credible, evidence-based information on the latest scientific research and policy, with extensive free coverage of the pandemic. Your tax-deductible contribution plays a critical role in sustaining this effort. Charitable Disclosures Loading... Skip slideshow Follow Us * * * * * * * NEWS * All News * ScienceInsider * News Features * Subscribe to News from Science * News from Science FAQ * About News from Science * CAREERS * Careers Articles * Find Jobs * Employer Profiles * COMMENTARY * Opinion * Analysis * Blogs * JOURNALS * Science * Science Advances * Science Immunology * Science Robotics * Science Signaling * Science Translational Medicine * Science Partner Journals * AUTHORS & REVIEWERS * Information for Authors * Information for Reviewers * LIBRARIANS * Manage Your Institutional Subscription * Library Admin Portal * Request a Quote * Librarian FAQs * ADVERTISERS * Advertising Kits * Custom Publishing Info * Post a Job * RELATED SITES * AAAS.org * AAAS Communities * EurekAlert! * Science in the Classroom * ABOUT US * Leadership * Work at AAAS * Prizes and Awards * HELP * FAQs * Access and Subscriptions * Order a Single Issue * Reprints and Permissions * TOC Alerts and RSS Feeds * Contact Us Follow Us * * * * * * AAAS logo (c) 2023 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI, AGORA, OARE, CHORUS, CLOCKSS, CrossRef and COUNTER. back to top * Terms of Service * Privacy Policy * Accessibility Thank you for reading News fromScience. You have reached your limit of 3 free news stories in the past 30 days. To gain unlimited access to News fromScience, pleaseLog inor subscribe to News from Science. AAAS Members canLog infor unlimited access. $2.99/Month$25/YearFrequently Asked Questions