Cited by 137Academic integrity and plagiarismPublishing and Scholarly CommunicationAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21 st century—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

Open access
Byrne, Jennifer A., Christopher, Jana·2020·FEBS Letters

Abstract

In recent years, it has been proposed that unrealistic requirements for academics and medical doctors to publish in scientific journals, combined with monetary publication rewards, have led to forms of contract cheating offered by organizations known as paper mills. Paper mills are alleged to offer products ranging from research data through to ghostwritten fraudulent or fabricated manuscripts and submission services. While paper mill operations remain poorly understood, it seems likely that paper mills need to balance product quantity and quality, such that they produce or contribute to large numbers of manuscripts that will be accepted for publication. Producing manuscripts at scale may be facilitated by the use of manuscript templates, which could give rise to shared features such as textual and organizational similarities, the description of highly generic study hypotheses and experimental approaches, digital images that show evidence of manipulation and/or reuse, and/or errors affecting verifiable experimental reagents. Based on these features, we propose practical steps that editors, journal staff, and peer reviewers can take to recognize and respond to research manuscripts and publications that may have been produced with undeclared assistance from paper mills.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/1873-3468.13747

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The similarities between and errors within SGK articles could reflect the undeclared involvement of organisations such as paper mills.

    “We proposed that the similarities between and errors within SGK articles could reflect the undeclared involvement of organisations such as paper mills (13), which have been alleged to mass-produce fraudulent manuscripts for publication (24, 25).”
  • Producing many gene research manuscripts at minimal cost could involve writers with either an incomplete understanding of the experiments that they are describing and/or limited time for quality control.

    “We also proposed that producing many gene research manuscripts at minimal cost could involve writers with either an incomplete understanding of the experiments that they are describing and/or limited time for quality control (8, 24).”
  • The production of manuscripts at scale could underpin unusual degrees of similarity between publications, as well as features such as superficial explanations for the analysis of particular genes, and generic experimental approaches.

    “We proposed that the production of manuscripts at scale could underpin unusual degrees of similarity between publications, as well as features such as superficial explanations for the analysis of particular genes, and generic experimental approaches (8, 13, 24, 25, 26).”
  • These conditions could lead to wrongly identified nucleotide sequences being a feature of gene research articles from paper mills, where incorrect sequences could also be reused across different manuscripts.

    “These conditions could lead to wrongly identified nucleotide sequences being a feature of gene research articles from paper mills (8, 24) where incorrect sequences could also be reused across different manuscripts (11, 12, 13).”
  • Unusual reagent errors combined with implausible or impossible results could flag that some affected articles are fraudulent.

    “Such unusual reagent errors combined with implausible or impossible results could flag that some affected articles are fraudulent (8, 11, 12, 13, 24, 26).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Byrne, J. A., & Christopher, J.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Byrne, Jennifer A.
  • Christopher, Jana
Venue
FEBS Letters
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-02
Volume
594
Issue
4
Pages
583-589
ISSN
  • 0014-5793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1873-3468
OpenAlex
W3008906624
Cited by
133
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 11
FWCI
23.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • FEBS Letters (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
paper mills, contract cheating, research misconduct, peer review, publication ethics, ghostwriting, data fabrication, image editing, research integrity, journal editors
MeSH terms
Paper, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Peer Review, Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review