ReviewBiomarker insights2019
The Possibility of Systematic Research Fraud Targeting Under-Studied Human Genes: Causes, Consequences, and Potential Solutions.
Review in Biomarker insights, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- A call for coordinated action on problematic papers in non-coding RNA research.Zoological research · 2026Article
- Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- An extra pair of eyes: adopting innovative approaches to detect integrity issues in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Review
- A call for research to address the threat of paper mills.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- The landscape of biomedical research.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Large-scale falsification of research papers risks public trust in biomedical sciences.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Article
- Toward a common standard for data and specimen provenance in life sciences.Learning health systems · 2024Article
- Distortion of journal impact factors in the era of paper mills.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023Article
- Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.Nucleic acids research · 2022Review
- Lightweight Distributed Provenance Model for Complex Real-world Environments.Scientific data · 2022Article
- Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences.Life science alliance · 2022Article
- A new chapter for a better Bioscience Reports.Bioscience reports · 2021Article
- COVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to pre-established research patterns.eLife · 2020Article
- Tracing open data in emergencies: The case of the COVID-19 pandemic.European journal of clinical investigation · 2020Article
- China bans cash rewards for publishing papers.Nature · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major reason for biomarker failure is the selection of candidate biomarkers based on inaccurate or incorrect published results. Incorrect research results leading to the selection of unproductive biomarker candidates are largely considered to stem from unintentional research errors. The additional possibility that biomarker research may be actively misdirected by research fraud has been given comparatively little consideration. This review discusses what we believe to be a new threat to biomarker research, namely, the possible systematic production of fraudulent gene knockdown studies that target under-studied human genes. We describe how fraudulent papers may be produced in series by paper mills using what we have described as a 'theme and variations' model, which could also be considered a form of salami slicing. We describe features of these single-gene knockdown publications that may allow them to evade detection by journal editors, peer reviewers, and readers. We then propose a number of approaches to facilitate their detection, including improved awareness of the features of publications constructed in series, broader requirements to post submitted manuscripts to preprint servers, and the use of semi-automated literature screening tools. These approaches may collectively improve the detection of fraudulent studies that might otherwise impede future biomarker research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.