CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Academic integrity and plagiarismBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionAcademic Publishing and Open Access

We need to talk about systematic fraud

Open access
Byrne, Jennifer·2019·Nature
DOI 10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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 · 10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9

Cites

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 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).”

    From Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

    The passage labeled Abstract (no page supplied) describes papers with highly similar language and figures and proposes that profit-seeking third parties produced them. It does not describe superficial explanations for analyzing particular genes or generic experimental approaches, so those features are not supported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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).”

    From Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

    The passage labeled Abstract (page unavailable) says wrongly identified nucleotide sequences can identify suspicious papers and describes strange irregularities in papers Byrne considers possibly fraudulent. It does not say that reagent errors combined with implausible or impossible results are a particular warning sign. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Wrongly identified nucleotide sequences in the context of repetitive and superficially justified gene research could reflect the external involvement of organisations such as paper mills.

    “We have previously proposed that wrongly identified nucleotide sequences in the context of repetitive and superficially justified gene research could reflect the external involvement of organisations such as paper mills (8, 13, 24, 26).”

    From Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences (2022) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Clients of paper mills are likely to be academics, research students and clinicians who do not have the time, facilities and/or training to conduct the genuine research that is required of them.

    “Clients of paper mills are likely to be academics, research students and clinicians who do not have the time, facilities and/or training to conduct the genuine research that is required of them (10,11,32,34,35).”

    From Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Paper mills are commercial entities that sell undeclared services in relation to research manuscripts and publications.

    “'paper mill' is applied to commercial entities that (also) sell undeclared services in relation to research manuscripts and publications (8–12,32,33).”

    From Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills (2022) · cites this paper as [11]

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

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Byrne, J.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Byrne, Jennifer
ORCID
Byrne, Jennifer
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2019-02-06
Volume
566
Issue
7742
Pages
9-9
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/d41586-019-00439-9
OpenAlex
W2914097620
Cited by
39
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4
FWCI
9.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
scientific fraud, scientific integrity, research misconduct

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