ArticleClinical rheumatology2022
Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retractions of publications on central nervous system tumors based on the Retraction Watch Database.Chinese neurosurgical journal · 2026Article
- Journal of Global Health's GUidelines for Authors on Requesting and DIsclosing changes in Authorship Nominations (GUARDIAN).Journal of global health · 2026Article
- Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Ten simple rules for optimal and careful use of generative AI in science.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Identifying common patterns in journals that retracted papers from paper mills: a cross-sectional study.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Analysis of Retractions in Nursing from Publications Between 2000 and 2024: A Bibliometric Analysis Using Retraction Watch.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2025Article
- miR-210 locus deletion disrupts cellular homeostasis: an integrated genetic study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Journal of Global Health's Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing 'paper mills', duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Is it time for a paper mill blacklist?Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Osteoarthritis Year in Review 2024: Molecular biomarkers of osteoarthritis.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2025Review
- AI for scientific integrity: detecting ethical breaches, errors, and misconduct in manuscripts.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- The undeclared use of third-party service providers in academic publishing is unethical: an epistemic reflection and scoping review.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- The Centrality of Trust in Academic Publishing Lies with the Corresponding Author.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills.Nucleic acids research · 2022Review
- Reproducibility and rigor in rheumatology research.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence in medicine and research - the good, the bad, and the ugly.Saudi journal of anaesthesiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
"Paper mills" are unethical outsourcing agencies proficient in fabricating fraudulent manuscripts submitted to scholarly journals. In earlier years, the activity of such companies involved plagiarism, but their processes have gained complexity, involving the fabrication of images and fake results. The objective of this study is to examine the main features of retracted paper mills' articles registered in the Retraction Watch database, from inception to the present, analyzing the number of articles per year, their number of citations, and their authorship network. Eligibility criteria for inclusion: retracted articles in any language due to paper mill activity. Retraction letters, notes, and notices, for exclusion. We collected the associated citations and the journals' impact factors of the retracted papers from Web of Science (Clarivate) and performed a data network analysis using VOSviewer software. This scoping review complies with PRISMA 2020 statement and main extensions. After a thorough analysis of the data, we identified 325 retracted articles due to suspected operations published in 31 journals (with a mean impact factor of 3.1). These retractions have produced 3708 citations. Nearly all retracted papers have come from China. Journal's impact factor lower than 7, life sciences journals, cancer, and molecular biology topics were common among retracted studies. The rapid increase of retractions is highly challenging. Paper mills damage scientific research integrity, exacerbating fraud, plagiarism, fake images, and simulated results. Rheumatologists should be fully aware of this growing phenomenon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35524149What 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.