The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: evidence from a Russia-based paper mill
Open accessAbstract
This study attempts to detect papers originating from the Russia-based paper mill International publisher LLC. A total of 1009 offers published during 2019-2021 on the 123mi.ru website were analysed. The study allowed us to identify at least 434 papers that are potentially linked to the paper mill including one preprint, a duplication paper and 15 republications of papers erroneously published in hijacked journals. Evidence of suspicious provenance from the paper mill is provided: matches in title, number of coauthorship slots, year of publication, country of the journal, country of a coauthorship slot and similarities of abstracts. These problematic papers are coauthored by scholars associated with at least 39 countries and submitted both to predatory and reputable journals. This study also demonstrates collaboration anomalies and the phenomenon of suspicious collaboration in questionable papers and examines the predictors of the Russia-based paper mill. The value of coauthorship slots offered by International Publisher LLC in 2019-2021 is estimated at $6.5 million. Since the study analysed a particular paper mill, it is likely that the number of papers with forged authorship is much higher.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 major source of fake publications are 1,000+ "academic support" agencies-so-called paper mills-located mainly in China, India, Russia, UK, and USA.
“The major source of fake publications are 1,000 + “academic support” agencies—so-called paper mills—located mainly in China, India, Russia, UK, and USA (Abalkina 2021; Else 2021; Pérez-Neri et al. 2022; consider Wittau and Seifert 2024 for a comprehensive review).”
From Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production (2026) · cites this paper as Abalkina 2021
The Introduction describes paper mills as sellers of fraudulent academic manuscripts, and “Retractions of paper-mill papers” says most known paper mills originate in China, with evidence of operations in Iran and Russia (page numbers unavailable). The paper does not establish that there are over 1,000 agencies, that they are the major source of fake publications, or that they are located mainly in the five countries listed. Its figure of 1,009 refers to offers analysed from one Russia-based paper mill, not a count of agencies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [2]2. Abalkina, A. (2021). Detecting a network of hijacked journals by its archive. Scientometrics 126, 7123-7148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04056-0 · DOI · Paper page
- [3]3. Abalkina, A. (2020). The case of the stolen journal. Retraction Watch, July 7. URL: https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/07/the-case-of-the-stolen-journal/ (retrieved on 09.12.2021).
- [4]4. Abalkina, A. (2020). Organization of Dissertation Mills in Russia. 6th International Conference Plagiarism. Across Europe and Beyond 2020 Dubai, United Arab Emirates-April 17-19
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production
Sabel, B. A., Knaack, E., Gigerenzer, G., & Bilc, M.-I. (2026) · Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00210-025-04275-9 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Abalkina, A.
- Corresponding author
- Abalkina, Anna
- ORCID
- Abalkina, Anna
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2112.13322
- OpenAlex
- W4226204005
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Refubium (Universitätsbibliothek der Freien Universität Berlin) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Universitätsbibliothek der FU Berlin Hochschulschriftenstelle u. Dokumentenserver
- Funders
- Freie Universität Berlin
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- paper mills, predatory journals, academic fraud, hijacked journals, preprints, research integrity
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
