ArticleScientific reports2024
Identifying fabricated networks within authorship-for-sale enterprises.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Challenges of Scientific Publishing: An Editor-In-Chief's Perspective.Fundamental & clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- Machine learning based screening of potential paper mill publications in cancer research: methodological and cross sectional study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Article
- The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is estimated that 2% of all journal submissions across all disciplines originate from paper mills, both creating significant risk that the body of research that we rely on to progress becomes corrupted, and placing undue burden on the submission process to reject these articles. By understanding how the business of paper mills-the technological approaches that they adopt, as well as the social structures that they require to operate-the research community can be empowered to develop strategies that make it harder, or ideally impossible for them to operate. Most of the contemporary work in paper-mill detection has focused on identifying the signals that have been left behind inside the text or structure of fabricated papers that result from the technological approaches that paper mills employ. As technologies employed by paper mills advance, these signals will become harder to detect. Fabricated papers do not just need text, images, and data however, they also require a fabricated or partially fabricated network of authors. Most 'authors' on a fabricated paper have not been associated with the research, but rather are added through a transaction. This lack of deeper connection means that there is a low likelihood that co-authors on fabricated papers will ever appear together on the same paper more than once. This paper constructs a model that encodes some of the key characteristics of this activity in an 'authorship-for-sale' network with the aim to create a robust method to detect this type of activity. A characteristic network fingerprint arises from this model that provides a robust statistical approach to the detection of paper-mill networks. The model suggested in this paper detects networks that have a statistically significant overlap with other approaches that principally rely on textual analysis for the detection of fraudulent papers. Researchers connected to networks identified using the methodology outlined in this paper are shown to be connected with 37% of papers identified through the tortured-phrase and clay-feet methods deployed in the Problematic Paper Screener website. Finally, methods to limit the expansion and propagation of these networks is discussed both in technological and social terms.
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.