ArticleNaunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology2025
Is it time for a paper mill blacklist?
Article in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scientific retractions: causes, processes, and implications for research integrity.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Paper mills represent one of science's greatest threats to the integrity of the entire scientific enterprise because they have become entrenched in a culture of the commercialization and corruption of science's assets, whether these be authorships, data sets, entire papers, editorial positions, or influence during editorial processes to favor a culture of unfair publication practices. This journal, which has taken proactive and exemplary steps to deal with this plague of fakery, is no stranger to the workings of such academic criminality, as exemplified by a string of retractions resulting from paper mill interference and association. This letter posits that a public database, and blacklist, of known paper mills is needed, as well as of authors who have a track record of using paper mills, but recognizes that the establishment of such a blacklist may pose practical, legal, and ethical challenges to its implementation and maintenance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39825966What 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.