Paper trail

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado0309

IF: 56.9

2024-01-20

Science

Abstract:In the latest twist of the publishing arms race, firms churning out fake papers have taken to bribing journal editors

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Kyle Siler,Philippe Vincent-Lamarre,Cassidy R. Sugimoto,Vincent Larivière

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02906-8

IF: 64.8

2021-10-26

Nature

Abstract:To thwart publishing rackets that undermine scholars and scholarly publishing, legitimate journals should show their workings.

multidisciplinary sciences
Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

Jeffrey Brainard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado2400

IF: 56.9

2024-01-26

Science

Abstract:Years after whistleblowers questioned nearly 300 papers, journals are slow to respond

multidisciplinary sciences
Spoof Research Paper is Accepted by 157 Journals

Nigel Hawkes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f5975

2013-01-01

BMJ

Abstract:A spoof medical paper full of easily detectable flaws was submitted in a sting operation to 304 open access journals and accepted by more than half of them. The results, reported in Science 1 by journalist John Bohannon, reveal “an emerging Wild West in academic publishing,” he says, with mushrooming numbers of new journals profiting from the open access model, in which authors rather than readers pay the cost of publication. Bohannon invented the names of authors and affiliations—such as Ocorrafoo Cobange of Wassee Institute of Medicine—and submitted in their names variations of the same basic paper claiming to have found anticancer properties in a molecule extracted from a …
Paper mill challenges: past, present, and future

Lisa Parker,Stephanie Boughton,Lisa Bero,Jennifer A. Byrne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111549

IF: 7.407

2024-10-31

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:Paper mills are fraudulent organizations that make money by writing fake manuscripts and offering authorship slots for sale to academic customers. Mill activity differs in scale to individual academic misconduct: many thousands of fake paper mill manuscripts have been successfully published in peer-reviewed journals. Despite this, paper mill activity is still relatively unrecognized outside the publishing industry. We discuss what is known about paper mill operations and how publishers, independent organizations, and individuals are working to prevent and detect mill activity. Research readers can also have a part to play in paper mill detection, and we provide detail on what to look out for.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Harold C. Sox,Drummond Rennie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-8-200604180-00123

IF: 39.2

2006-04-18

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The scientific literature is a record of the search for truth. Publication of faked data diverts this search. The scientific community has a duty to warn people to ignore an article containing faked data and must try to prevent inadvertent citation of it. The scientific community accomplishes these tasks by publishing a retraction and linking it to the fraudulent article's citation in electronic indexes of the medical literature, such as PubMed. This mechanism is far from perfect, as shown by a case history of scientific fraud perpetrated by Eric Poehlman, PhD. His institution notified 3 journals that they had published tainted articles. Two journals failed to retract. The third journal retracted immediately, but other authors continued to cite the retracted article. Another duty of the scientific community is to verify the integrity of other articles published by the author of a fraudulent article. This task falls to the author's institution and requires coauthors to vouch for their article's integrity by convincing institutional investigators that the suspect author could not have altered the raw scientific data from their study. Two universities are currently investigating Poehlman's published research. Maintaining the integrity of the scientific literature requires governmental institutions that have the authority to investigate and punish guilty scientists and requires that research institutions investigate alleged fraud. It requires journal editors to issue a retraction when they learn that their journal has published a tainted article. It requires research institutions to accept their responsibility to investigate every article published by a scientist who has published even 1 fraudulent article. Finally, it requires authors to take pains to avoid citing retracted articles and to issue a correction when they inadvertently cite a retracted article.

medicine, general & internal
Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?

Kiran Sharma

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2011.13091

2020-11-26

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications and this database reveals the disturbing trend in science~\citep{fang2012misconduct, brainard2018massive}. The objective of the study is to find the association among the authors' collaboration, the number of retracted papers, the number of retracted citations, journal impact factor, and research areas. We present a detailed analysis of 12231 research papers indexed by Web of Science (WoS) as retracted publications from 1981-2020. The study demonstrates the collaboration patterns of retracted publications where 61.5% of authors have only one and 24.6% have two retracted papers; however, 2% of authors have more than 10 retracted papers. To study the impact of citing retracted papers, we investigated the retracted papers with citations. The study reveals that 55.2% of retracted papers have been cited at least once, where 25.4% of papers are such papers where at least one citation turned out to be a retraction. This shows the impact of scientific misconduct or fraud on new research. The number of retractions is independent of the journal impact factor and as compared to high impact papers, low impact papers are attracting more citations. We also investigate the citations received by retracted papers published in higher as well as lower impact factor journals. 1/4th of the papers are retracted citations that cited the retracted papers; however, there is no significant relationship exists between the higher impact or lower impact journals with retractions or citations. Finally, how the average team size and average retracted citations vary among different research areas are studied. The study provides an insight that how a fraud leads to another fraud in the scientific world. Also, the rising trend of citations of retracted papers is a serious concern.
Science's fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills

Katharine Sanderson,Katharine Sanderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00159-9

IF: 64.8

2024-01-19

Nature

Abstract:EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research. EXCLUSIVE: Poor-quality studies are polluting the literature — a group will study the businesses that produce them to stem the flow of bogus research.

multidisciplinary sciences
"Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research

Shubhada Nagarkar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2024.025

Abstract:The primary objective of any research, regardless of its domain such as health, technology, psychology, or any other subject, is to enhance the overall well-being of individuals. Rigorous processes are involved in conducting research ethically and in communicating its outcomes to society. However, as publishing research has become a mandatory requirement for career advancement and appointments, academics are resorting to several unethical practices to get substandard work published quickly. Consequently, predatory publishing markets have emerged, which publish data that is falsified and fabricated, along with plagiarised textual matter. The emergence of "paper mills" is a further step in the corruption of research, where a group of persons or automated systems generate papers for publication. Anyone desirous of publishing a paper can purchase one, akin to any desired fast-moving consumer product, with the added guarantee of publication in indexed journals. Therefore, paper mills and their unethical modus operandi are discussed in this paper in detail, with relevant examples. The article unfolds the consequences of publishing such fraudulent research papers and concludes with the challenges in combating paper mills.
Research Misconduct in Business and Management Studies: Causes, Consequences, and Possible Remedies

Dennis Tourish,Russell Craig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492618792621

2018-09-05

Journal of Management Inquiry

Abstract:This article analyses 131 articles that have been retracted from peer-reviewed journals in business and management studies. We also draw from six in-depth interviews: three with journal editors involved in retractions, two with coauthors of papers retracted because a fellow author committed research fraud, and one with a former academic found guilty of research fraud. Our aim is to promote debate about the causes and consequences of research misconduct and to suggest possible remedies. Drawing on corruption theory, we suggest that a range of institutional, environmental, and behavioral factors interacts to provide incentives that sustain research misconduct. We explore the research practices that have prompted retractions. We contend that some widely used, but questionable research practices, should be challenged so as to promote stronger commitment to research integrity and to deter misconduct. To this end, we propose eleven recommendations for action by authors, editors, publishers, and the broader scientific community.

management
Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01609-0

IF: 64.8

2024-06-01

Nature

Abstract:Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions. Unreliable data, falsification and other issues related to misconduct are driving a growing proportion of retractions.

multidisciplinary sciences
'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Holly Else

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-03178-8

IF: 64.8

2024-10-15

Nature

Abstract:A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan. A paper by some of the biggest names in scientific integrity is retracted for issues including misstatements about the research plan.

multidisciplinary sciences
Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Brian Owens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q659

2024-03-27

BMJ

Abstract:Frontiers, like other for-profit open access publishers, has struggled with a perception it has low editorial standards and weak peer review. But is that true? Brian Owens reports

medicine, general & internal
Retraction: Fake News Detection on Social Media Using Machine Learning (J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1916 012235)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1916/1/012472

2021-05-01

Journal of Physics: Conference Series

Abstract:This article (and all articles in the proceedings volume relating to the same conference) has been retracted by IOP Publishing following an extensive investigation in line with the COPE guidelines. This investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication process and considerable citation manipulation. IOP Publishing respectfully requests that readers consider all work within this volume potentially unreliable, as the volume has not been through a credible peer review process. IOP Publishing regrets that our usual quality checks did not identify these issues before publication, and have since put additional measures in place to try to prevent these issues from reoccurring. IOP Publishing wishes to credit anonymous whistleblowers and the Problematic Paper Screener [1] for bringing some of the above issues to our attention, prompting us to investigate further. [1] Cabanac G, Labbé C and Magazinov A 2021 arXiv: 2107.06751v1 Retraction published: 23 February 2022
High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct

Yu Xiao,Jia Chen,Xiao-hong Wu,Qin-ming Qiu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2021-140853

2021-09-06

Postgraduate Medical Journal

Abstract:As researchers, we found the article, 'Peer reviews. A peer reviewer's view'1 thought provoking. The author states that a detailed analysis of retracted papers reveals that faked peer reviews are not uncommon. Shockingly, 75% of 250 retracted papers that had faked peer review were written by Chinese authors.2 Nowadays, because researchers are eager to be recognised and cited, the peer review system is greatly challenged. Between 2007 and 2018, the retraction rate of Chinese authors' Science Citation Index (SCI) papers was the highest in the world, reaching 22.7/10 000 papers, five times that of the USA.3 Retractions were issued because of fraud, inconsistent reporting, plagiarism, mistakes, duplication, legal and ethical concerns, and disputed authorship. A study shows that the article types which are frequently retracted are original research works, randomised trials and reviews, and there is a strong association between the retracted items and...

medicine, general & internal
Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Zhang Qin,Fu Hui-Zhen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04252-y

IF: 3.801

2022-01-01

Scientometrics

Abstract:Problematic publications and scientific misconduct have raised global concern, in which the authors have played a key role. Since research misconduct occurs more frequently in the clinical medicine field, we took this field as an example to explore productivity patterns, collaboration, and scientific careers of authors at the individual level. The application of Lotka's law (C = 0.883, n = 3.597) showed a loose collaboration network and a predominant aggregation of authors with multiple retracted publications. Most authors were retracted only once while a small group of authors had most retracted publications. Authors with most retractions appeared to have stable collaboration with certain individuals. The occurrences of falsification and ethical issues increased with the higher involvement of authors with multiple retracted publications. Two typical publication patterns of retractions in different stages of scientific career have been found: (1) committing scientific misconduct in the early career, mainly for promotion, and (2) participating in scientific misconduct when mature in the career, most due to neglecting the duty as a supervisor. The team culture, regulations, publication policies, and joint efforts by the scientific community have a direct influence on the occurrences of scientific misconduct. Conclusions are made with a focus on the need for more actions to prevent scientific misconduct and to strengthen scientific norms and integrity.
Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

Andrew M Colman,Tim Stokes,Elaine Gurr,Carolyn Tarrant

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q226

2024-01-29

BMJ

Abstract:Plagiarism in published research articles is a threat to the integrity of the scientific record, and it seems to be on the increase—boosted by the growing industry of predatory publishing.1 Open access journals of dubious quality exploit researchers by charging publication fees for rapid publication without rigorous scrutiny. Demand for easy and rapid publication of articles, in turn, arises from the increasingly competitive market in academic jobs and the demand this creates for researchers to publish journal articles. Plagiarism in predatory journals threatens to erode the integrity of higher degrees and CVs, and hence potentially the expertise of doctors, scientists, and other professionals, and of the academics who train them.23We discovered in March 2022 that an article we'd published4 had been plagiarised in an obscure journal.5 We might never have known of the plagiarism had we not been alerted to it by a student who spotted the duplication. The plagiarising...

medicine, general & internal
Retracted: Judicial Application of Punitive Damages for Ecological Environment Infringement in Civil Public Interest Litigation

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9821049

2023-06-29

Journal of Environmental and Public Health

Abstract:This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: (1) Discrepancies in scope (2) Discrepancies in the description of the research reported (3) Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described (4) Inappropriate citations (5) Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article (6) Peer-review manipulation
Prescription for controversy

Frederik Joelving,Retraction Watch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adq2869

IF: 56.9

2024-05-10

Science

Abstract:Firms offering a fast track to publication target foreign applicants to U.S. medical residency programs

multidisciplinary sciences
Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Richard Van Noorden,Miryam Naddaf

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02719-5

IF: 64.8

2024-08-31

Nature

Abstract:Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature. Data from giant project show how withdrawn research propagates through the literature.

multidisciplinary sciences
Reliability of the primary scientific literature

A. Abeysekera

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4038/jnsfsr.v51i4.11991

2024-01-02

Journal of the National Science Foundation of Sri Lanka

Abstract:The confidence that scientists and the public have in the reliability of the primary scientific literature stems from a cardinal feature of scientific knowledge itself; that it is public knowledge open to verification by anyone independently, and that its validity does not depend upon the authority of the individual/persons reporting the knowledge. Thus, it has been the norm that extravagant claims made on deliberately falsified data (or wrongly interpreted data driven by an overabundance of enthusiasm) were rare, and exposed early on after publication. Retractions, when made by authors due to honest errors, served to enhance the confidence in scientific knowledge, and is considered a demonstration of the inherent nature of scientific knowledge to correct itself, as it progresses.However, the large number of retractions by publishers that are now being reported has made a dent in this confidence. It was recently reported in Nature that there were over 10,000 retractions in 2023. The reasons for the retractions were multifarious, and included papers identified as coming from paper mills, papers where images and data had been manipulated and papers published after fraudulent peer review.Of special interest was the observation that the largest number of retractions were from special issues related to specific topics or conference proceedings. There is a legitimate view that special issues serve a purpose and can enhance the profile of a journal. Nevertheless, it is ironical that special issues today are not special, but have become common, and have lost the original high purpose for which they were intended; to bring together a limited number of papers by established scientists on an emerging topic of relevance and current interest, which could spur on further development.Editorial boards need to be alert to the increasing amount of malpractice among unethical practitioners professing to be scientists. The COPE documents on retractions provide sound and practical guidelines to minimize the publication of dubious papers which would need to be retracted later.

multidisciplinary sciences

Paper trail

Predatory publishers’ latest scam: bootlegged and rebranded papers

Retractions lag for wave of suspect papers

Spoof Research Paper is Accepted by 157 Journals

Paper mill challenges: past, present, and future

Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case

Patterns of retractions from 1981-2020 : Does a fraud lead to another fraud?

Science's fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills

"Research paper mills": A factory outlet for dubious research

Research Misconduct in Business and Management Studies: Causes, Consequences, and Possible Remedies

Biomedical paper retractions have quadrupled in 20 years — why?

'Doing good science is hard': retraction of high-profile reproducibility study prompts soul-searching

Frontiers’ journals saw large scale retractions—where does that leave the publisher’s reputation with researchers?

Retraction: Fake News Detection on Social Media Using Machine Learning (J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1916 012235)

High retraction rate of Chinese articles: it is time to do something about academic misconduct

Productivity Patterns, Collaboration and Scientific Careers of Authors with Retracted Publications in Clinical Medicine

Journals need to provide better guidance for victims of plagiarism

Retracted: Judicial Application of Punitive Damages for Ecological Environment Infringement in Civil Public Interest Litigation

Prescription for controversy

Exclusive: the papers that most heavily cite retracted studies

Reliability of the primary scientific literature