Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39476003›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis.

João Phillipe Cardenuto, Daniel Moreira, Anderson Rocha

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. [Scientific fraud and dubious publication practices].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

João Phillipe CardenutoArtificial Intelligence Lab. Recod.ai, Institute of Computing, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-8370-6329
Daniel MoreiraDepartment of Computer Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9757-5756
Anderson RochaArtificial Intelligence Lab. Recod.ai, Institute of Computing, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of fake publications created by paper mills poses a significant challenge to maintaining scientific integrity. While integrity analysts typically rely on textual and visual clues to identify fake articles, determining which papers merit further investigation can be akin to searching for a needle in a haystack, as these fake publications have non-related authors and are published on non-related venues. To address this challenge, we developed a new methodology for provenance analysis, which automatically tracks and groups suspicious figures and documents. Our approach groups manuscripts from the same paper mill by analyzing their figures and identifying duplicated and manipulated regions. These regions are linked and organized in a provenance graph, providing evidence of systematic production. We tested our solution on a paper mill dataset of hundreds of documents and also on a larger version of the dataset that deliberately included thousands of documents intentionally selected to distract our method. Our approach successfully identified and linked systematically produced articles on both datasets by pinpointing the figures they reused and manipulated from one another. The technique herein proposed offers a promising solution to identify fraudulent manuscripts, and it could be a valuable tool for supporting scientific integrity.

Indexed as

PaperScientific MisconductHumansPublicationsPublishing

Identifiers

PMID39476003
PMCPMC11524478

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.