ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022
Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Citations of microRNA Biomarker Articles That Were Retracted: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- What breaks when federal commitments break: comment on Beccia et al.SSM. Mental health · 2026Article
- Quantifying new threats to health and biomedical literature integrity from rapidly scaled publications and problematic research.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2026Article
- Challenges and future directions for Mendelian randomization.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Beyond predatory journals: peer review transparency as a preventive strategy for editorial integrity in scholarly communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Navigating the new frontier: growth, integrity, and our vision for 2026.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Knowledge and practices about research integrity among Peruvian university students.BMC medical ethics · 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
- Open science and transparency are our strongest tools in the fight against fraudulent publishing activities.PLoS medicine · 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
- Improving scientific integrity in Chinese medical institutions with the Hospital Research Integrity Alliance.Nature medicine · 2025Article
- Is it time for a paper mill blacklist?Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals: recommendations for early career scientists.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Geographical Disparities in Research Misconduct: Analyzing Retraction Patterns by Country.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Special Issues: The roles of special issues in scholarly communication in a changing publishing landscape.Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2025Article
- Gender disparities among authors of retracted publications in medical journals: A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.
designCross sectional study.
settingThe Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.
participantsAll paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.
main outcome measuresDescriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.
results1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.
conclusionsPapers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.
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.