Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796310›Full record

ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024

Fake paper identification in the pool of withdrawn and rejected manuscripts submitted to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.

Jonathan Wittau, Serkan Celik, Tim Kacprowski, Thomas M Deserno, Roland Seifert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. AI hallucinations in academic writing: implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonathan WittauInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Serkan CelikBraunschweig Integrated Centre of Systems Biology, TU Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Tim KacprowskiBraunschweig Integrated Centre of Systems Biology, TU Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany.
Thomas M DesernoPeter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School, 38106, Braunschweig, Germany.
Roland SeifertInstitute of Pharmacology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. seifert.roland@mh-hannover.de.

Funding

Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung Promotionsprogramm DigiStrucMed 2020_EKPK.20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Honesty of publications is fundamental in science. Unfortunately, science has an increasing fake paper problem with multiple cases having surfaced in recent years, even in renowned journals. There are companies, the so-called paper mills, which professionally fake research data and papers. However, there is no easy way to systematically identify these papers. Here, we show that scanning for exchanged authors in resubmissions is a simple approach to detect potential fake papers. We investigated 2056 withdrawn or rejected submissions to Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), 952 of which were subsequently published in other journals. In six cases, the stated authors of the final publications differed by more than two thirds from those named in the submission to NSAP. In four cases, they differed completely. Our results reveal that paper mills take advantage of the fact that journals are unaware of submissions to other journals. Consequently, papers can be submitted multiple times (even simultaneously), and authors can be replaced if they withdraw from their purchased authorship. We suggest that publishers collaborate with each other by sharing titles, authors, and abstracts of their submissions. Doing so would allow the detection of suspicious changes in the authorship of submitted and already published papers. Independently of such collaboration across publishers, every scientific journal can make an important contribution to the integrity of the scientific record by analyzing its own pool of withdrawn and rejected papers versus published papers according to the simple algorithm proposed in the present paper.

Indexed as

AuthorshipFake paperNaunyn–Schmiedeberg’s Archives of PharmacologyPaper millRejectedScientific misconductWithdrawn

Identifiers

PMID37796310
PMCPMC10933159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.