KEY TAKEAWAYS 

• The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers’ Research Identity Verification Framework aims to tackle fraudulent submissions, including from paper mills.
• The framework of layered identity checks for researchers, peer reviewers, and editors aims to raise obstacles to misconduct and enhance transparency, while maintaining inclusivity for all authentic researchers.

Research is facing an unprecedented integrity challenge, with sophisticated paper mills publishing poor-quality and fraudulent papers by unverifiable researchers and fake personas. To combat this issue, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) has developed a Research Identity Verification Framework, released for community review. In an interview with Retraction Watch, Hylke Koers, Chief Information Officer at STM, shared how the framework could be used by journals and institutions to verify the identity of researchers.

Why is the framework needed?

Currently, publishers rely on time-consuming manual checks to validate the identity of contributors such as authors, peer reviewers, or guest editors. These processes do not match the speed and organisation of fraudulent networks. Part of the problem lies in the ease with which untraceable digital identities can be created and used to manipulate key parts of the publishing pipeline, for example, suggesting a fake reviewer. New approaches are needed to tackle this growing issue.

How will the framework be used?

The framework introduces a layered, systemic method of identity verification. Suggested methods include asking individuals to:

• validate an institutional email address
• sign in via ORCiD or use ORCiD Trust Markers
• provide a government document, such a passport or driving licence.

Koers notes that implementing these checks would make impersonation or identity theft more difficult and improve accountability, while multiple options for verification retain accessibility. Publishers are advised to assess the level of risk, asking “how confident can we be that this person is who they claim to be, and that the information they’ve provided is genuine?”.

“Implementing these checks would make impersonation or identity theft more difficult and improve accountability”

What are the next steps?

The success of the Research Identity Verification Framework will rely on widespread adoption. The STM plans to collaborate with early adopters to develop practical implementation pathways and refine future recommendations.

Koers notes that ultimately, no framework can eliminate all fraud, but making it more difficult to act fraudulently and easier to trace and respond to publishing misconduct should have a positive impact.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Research integrity concerns are growing, with over 10,000 article retractions recorded in 2023.
• Publishers are investing in tools, training, and investigations to combat misconduct, but collaboration across stakeholders is vital to uphold ethical research practices.

The rise in research integrity concerns is shaping the role of journal publishers, as detailed in a recent Insights article by Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity at Taylor & Francis. With over 10,000 article retractions recorded in 2023, the issue of academic misconduct is growing, prompting publishers to implement stronger safeguards and investigative processes. However, ensuring research integrity is a shared responsibility, requiring active involvement from institutions, funders, and researchers alike.

The evolving challenge of research integrity

The prevalence of cases of misconduct – ranging from unintentional errors to deliberate fraud – has led to the increase in retractions. Among the many challenges publishers face are paper mills, citation manipulation, and AI-generated fraudulent content. However, these represent just a fraction of the evolving unethical practices that threaten academic integrity. As the publishing landscape changes, so too do the methods of bad actors who continuously adapt to bypass safeguards, making it essential for publishers to remain vigilant and responsive to new threats.

Shared responsibility in addressing unethical practices

While publishers are making significant investments in internal processes, training, and investigative teams to detect and address misconduct, there is also a critical need for greater awareness among consumers of scholarly content. Understanding the different types of post-publication notices, such as corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern, is essential for interpreting research validity and credibility.

Understanding the different types of post-publication notices, such as corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern, is essential for interpreting research validity and credibility.

Educating researchers, institutions, and the wider academic community about these notices will help ensure that retracted or questionable research is not inadvertently cited or relied upon in future work. Alam acknowledges initiatives such as United2Act and STM Integrity Hub that are aiming to create industry-wide solutions to prevent fraudulent research from being published in the first place.

As scholarly publishing evolves, the focus on ethics and transparency continues to grow. By strengthening detection mechanisms, enforcing ethical guidelines, and fostering a shared responsibility for ethical publication practices, we can collectively safeguard the credibility of academic research.

After reading the article, click here for a brief survey and to receive your authorization code for your Credit Tracker. This serves as documentation for the activity.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The increasing trend of artificially boosting citation metrics is an illegitimate, yet lucrative business.
• Several research teams are striving to identify and prevent these fraudulent practices, but the methods used are becoming alarmingly sophisticated.

Fraudulent publication tactics, from fake data to paper mills, pose a significant threat to the integrity of academic research. Now, increasing rates of citation manipulation are the latest trend to spark concerns among researchers. In a recent Nature News article, Dalmeet Singh Chawla looks at the scale of the threat and efforts to expose unscrupulous practices.

Spot the red flags

Computer scientist Yasir Zaki is among those at the forefront of investigations. As he explained to Singh Chawla, there are some key warning signs to look out for if citation manipulation is suspected:

• a steep rise in citations shortly after publication
• citations deriving from limited sources
• a sudden, large increase in citations.

The scale of the problem

While in the past, citation manipulation was a more ‘low-tech’ practice, with ‘citation rings’ citing each other’s work, we are presented with a very different picture today. Zaki’s team ran an undercover operation exposing a black market industry that sells citations via paper mills. Further work by the group found that fake preprints were a key method used to artificially bolster citation counts. In another demonstration of how easy ‘citation gaming’ has become in the digital age, a different group were able to list papers on Google Scholar that had been ‘authored’ by a cat and then cite these in fake papers they posted on ResearchGate.

Solutions in sight?

While the scale of this industry is sobering, Singh Chawla shone a light on efforts to tackle the issue:

• A tool by Guillaume Cabanac (University of Toulouse) detects unusual phrasing indicative of fake research papers. Cabanac reports that many of these papers also contain suspicious citations.
• Cyril Labbé’s group (Grenoble Alpes University) is developing a tool to flag unusual citation patterns.
• Zaki’s team suggest a new metric (the citation-concentration index) that identifies authors with citations derived from limited sources.

However, as fraudsters come up with new and nuanced ways to ‘game’ the system, the scientific community must remain vigilant.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In a test run, a new AI-based system developed by scientific publisher Wiley flagged 10–13% of submitted manuscripts as potential fakes.
• Generative AI tools could help combat the threat posed by paper mills to research integrity.

An AI-based service designed to detect bogus scientific articles flagged 10–13% of submitted manuscripts in a pilot run, according to a blog post by Ivan Oransky for Retraction Watch. The fake papers were caught by publisher Wiley’s Papermill Detection service, which screens submissions ahead of editorial review. The multi-tool system is a promising development in ongoing efforts to ensure the integrity of published research.

Spotting fake articles

Paper mills are paid to produce fake research papers, which can appear very similar to genuine manuscripts. According to Wiley, its new system uses 6 different approaches to identify what it calls “potentially compromised research content”:

• checking for similarity with existing paper mill papers
• flagging the use of “tortured phrases”
• identifying authors with unusual publication behaviour
• verifying the identity of researchers
• detecting potential misuse of generative AI
• checking that manuscripts fall within a journal’s scope.

The test run involved over 270 Wiley journals, which rejected between 600–1,000 submitted manuscripts per month once they started using the tool. A spokesperson for Wiley told Retraction Watch that flagged papers would not automatically be rejected, but would be considered by an editor before being processed further. The publisher says it is partnering with Sage and IEEE for its next testing phase, and aims to roll out the service as early as next year.

The test run involved over 270 Wiley journals, which rejected between 600–1,000 submitted manuscripts per month once they started using the tool.

Paper mill problems

Paper mills are a major source of articles that end up being retracted after publication. Most manuscripts retracted in 2023 were published by Hindawi, a subsidiary of Wiley, with a high proportion involving Chinese authors. This lead to a government-initiated review that required all university researchers in China to declare their retracted papers.

Last year, Wiley closed 4 Hindawi journals due to paper mill issues and announced that it will stop using the Hindawi brand. Wiley has since discontinued another 19 journals overseen by Hindawi, which it said was due to portfolio integration.

Possible solutions on the horizon

Investigations into retractions should help ensure the integrity of published research, but there is growing interest in using new tools such as Papermill Alarm to help stop fake papers getting published in the first place. Wiley say their new service will complement the STM Integrity Hub, a resource developed by academic publishers that incorporates Papermill Alarm and other tools to help combat fake science.

While much discussion around developments in AI has focused on possible threats to research integrity, spotting bogus manuscripts could be an area where AI could help restore trust in published science.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The retraction rate for biomedical science papers with corresponding authors based at European institutions quadrupled between 2000 and 2020.
• Unreliable data has emerged as a leading reason for retraction, while duplication remains a key factor.

Research misconduct remains a major concern, with increasing efforts dedicated to monitoring retraction rates – and the underlying reasons. An analysis recently published in Scientometrics and discussed in Nature news uncovered a quadrupling of retraction rates since 2000 among biomedical science articles with corresponding authors based at European institutions, from about 11 per 100,000 articles to almost 45 per 100,000 in 2020.

Why are articles retracted?

Fabián Freijedo-Farinas and colleagues reviewed over 2,000 retracted English-, Spanish-, and Portuguese-language articles collated by Retraction Watch to identify underlying reasons. Research misconduct was the most prevalent factor, accounting for 67% of cases, while 16% of retractions were due to honest errors (with no reason provided for the remainder). Research misconduct-related retractions were due to:

• unreliable data
• unreliable results
• falsification/fabrication
• duplication
• plagiarism
• authorship and/or affiliation issues
• ethical and legal issues.

Reasons have shifted over time, with authorship and affiliation issues falling from one of the top reasons to joint 5th of 7. Duplication has remained steady as a cause, while retractions due to unreliable data – including bias and lack of original data availability – have skyrocketed. The authors suggest paper mills have a major role to play.

However, it’s not the same story across Europe: of the 4 countries with the most retractions, the proportion of duplication-related retractions has fallen in the UK but substantially increased in Italy and Spain.

Why are retraction rates increasing?

Arturo Casadevall, who identified similar rates of research misconduct-related retractions in a 2012 analysis, commented that the overall hike in retraction rates could be due to authors, institutions, and journals increasingly viewing retraction as the best route to correct the scientific record.

The overall hike in retraction rates could be due to authors, institutions, and journals increasingly viewing retraction as the best route to correct the scientific record.

In addition, publications have increasingly drawn the attention of online sleuths, who may raise concerns with journals, according to research integrity specialist Sholto David. New digital technologies are also making it easier to screen publications for suspicious text or data. Retraction Watch co-founder Ivan Oranksy believes use of plagiarism-detection software could be partially responsible for the increase; looking to the future, tools like image manipulation detectors could mean retraction rates rise further.

After reading the article, click here for a brief survey and to receive your authorization code for your Credit Tracker. This serves as documentation for the activity.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The atlas of biomedical literature is a new tool that can help explore broad research trends and identify fabricated studies.
• It uses AI to analyse a vast amount of scientific literature and produce a navigable visual map of 21 million publications.

Fraudulent research poses significant challenges for the biomedical community, casting doubts on the validity of scientific findings and undermining public trust. A potential solution has emerged with the development of an atlas of biomedical literature, a publicly available tool that could revolutionise the way we track down fabricated studies.

In an article written by Kamal Nahas for Science, we learn that the atlas leverages the power of machine learning algorithms to analyse millions of papers. In doing so, it can identify patterns across publications and uncover articles that may have been produced by paper mills.

The atlas can be used to uncover clusters of publications containing retracted articles and others with red flags that may suggest fabrication.

Rita González-Márquez and colleagues used a large language model that analyses scientific abstracts to explore broad trends across the biomedical literature landscape. The tool creates a visual map consisting of large colour-coded bundles, which enables researchers to navigate the vast amount of information efficiently and effectively. Additionally, the atlas can be used to uncover clusters of publications containing retracted articles and others with red flags that may suggest fabrication.

The atlas has a number of potential benefits for the biomedical community:

1. Improved quality control: The atlas empowers researchers to conduct thorough due diligence, ensuring that the studies they rely on are scientifically sound.
2. Enhanced reputation: Stakeholders can bolster their credibility and maintain public trust by publishing accurate and evidence-based information.
3. Streamlined research process: Use of the atlas significantly reduces the time and effort required to identify potentially fraudulent studies.

The atlas adds to a growing list of tools such as the Papermill Alarm that can be used in the fight against fraudulent articles. We look forward to seeing these tools being used to help safeguard the integrity of scientific research.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The production of fraudulent articles by paper mills is on the increase.
• Papermill Alarm is a new software tool that can screen submitted manuscripts for similarities to known bogus articles.

The submission of journal articles produced by illegal paper mills is a common problem in scientific publishing, and such articles can be difficult to identify. In a recent Nature News article, Holly Else highlights a new tool, ‘Papermill Alarm’, that could be adopted in the fight against bogus content.

Paper mills are paid to produce fake manuscripts that appear similar to legitimate research papers. Developed by Adam Day, Papermill Alarm is a software tool that can analyse the titles and abstracts of scientific papers to assess their similarity to previously identified fraudulent articles. Although not providing definitive proof that an article has been produced by a paper mill, the tool does flag those that may warrant further investigation.

Using Papermill Alarm, Day determined that 1% of PubMed articles contain text similar to those produced by paper mills.

Using Papermill Alarm, Day determined that 1% of PubMed articles contain text similar to those produced by paper mills, with a prior report from the UK Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) suggesting the figure may be at least 2%, and up to 46% in certain journals.

Several publishers are reportedly interested in adopting Papermill Alarm as a screening tool for submitted manuscripts. Whilst the scientific impact of fraudulent articles produced by paper mills may be limited, given their low citations counts, they nevertheless retain the potential to damage the trust in, and reputation of, scientific research. As such, there is an urgent need for joint action by scholarly research stakeholders to address the thriving paper mill industry.

—————————————————–