ReviewNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2024
How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem.
Review 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 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI humanizers and the crisis of information integrity: implications for scientific writing.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Research integrity in Spain: Great expectations, mediocre results.Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Fake publications in biomedical science: red-flagging method indicates mass production.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Authorship analysis of publications in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (1969-2024).Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- From Germany to the world: analysis of 25,931 documents (from 1873 to 2025) published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Introducing PROSPECT: a novel process for prospectively tracking research engagement.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Open science and transparency are our strongest tools in the fight against fraudulent publishing activities.PLoS medicine · 2025Article
- Authors must follow the editorial guidelines on the use of large language models in review papers.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- It takes four to tango: the cooperative adventure of scientific publishing.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025Article
- 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
- A call for research to address the threat of paper mills.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Combating Fake Science in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence: A Biomedical Perspective.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific fake papers, containing manipulated or completely fabricated data, are a problem that has reached dramatic dimensions. Companies known as paper mills (or more bluntly as "criminal science publishing gangs") produce and sell such fake papers on a large scale. The main drivers of the fake paper flood are the pressure in academic systems and (monetary) incentives to publish in respected scientific journals and sometimes the personal desire for increased "prestige." Published fake papers cause substantial scientific, economic, and social damage. There are numerous information sources that deal with this topic from different points of view. This review aims to provide an overview of these information sources until June 2024. Much more original research with larger datasets is needed, for example on the extent and impact of the fake paper problem and especially on how to detect them, as many findings are based more on small datasets, anecdotal evidence, and assumptions. A long-term solution would be to overcome the mantra of publication metrics for evaluating scientists in academia.
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.