New forms of fraud in science: Deceptive practices such as article mills, fraudulent peer review, and automatic content generation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2025655Keywords:
Scientific Production, Fraud, Retractions, Paper Mill, Random Content, Fake Peer ReviewAbstract
Introduction: The study analyzes emerging trends in scientific fraud, focusing on article mills, fraudulent peer reviews, and randomly generated content, practices that have transformed the dynamics of scientific retractions.
Methods: With a descriptive and transversal approach, 37,480 retracted documents were analyzed between 2015 and 2024, using data from the Retraction Watch database. Information was collected on authors, countries of affiliation, dates, areas of knowledge, and reasons for retraction.
Results: The results reveal a notable change in the causes of retraction. Between 2015 and 2019, plagiarism (21.6%) and duplication (14%) led, while between 2020 and 2024 they dropped to 6.8% and 4%, respectively. In this last period, article mills (30.1%), fake peer reviews (19.9%), and randomly generated content (23.3%) increased. These practices mainly affected Business, Technology and Social Sciences, with China and India leading in these fraudulent activities.
Conclusions: The study concludes that these new forms of scientific fraud represent a critical challenge to the integrity of the publications system. It underscores the need to strengthen editorial policies, implement advanced screening tools, and promote ethics education to protect the credibility of global science.
References
1. Elango B, Koza, M, Rajendra P. Analysis of retractions in Indian Science. Scientometrics, 2019;119 (2): 1081-1094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03079-y
2. Shepperd M, Yousefi L. An analysis of retracted papers in Computer Science. PLoS ONE, 2023;18(5): e0285383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285383
3. Almeida R, de Albuquerque Rocha K, Catelani F, Fontes-Pereira A, Vasconcelos S. Plagiarism Allegations Account for Most Retractions in Major Latin American/Caribbean Databases. Sci Eng Ethics, 2016;22:1447–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9714-5
4. Fang F, Steen G, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications.Published in Anesthesiology Journals, Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2012;135(5): 1011-1020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1220649110
5. Campos-Varela I, Ruano-Raviña A. Misconduct as the main cause for retraction. A descriptive study of retracted publications and their authors. Gaceta Sanitaria. 2019;33(4): 356-360. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.01.009
6. Rodrigues F, Gupta P, Khan AP, Chatterjee T, Sandhu NK, Gupta L. The Cultural Context of Plagiarism and Research Misconduct in the Asian Region. J Korean Med Sci. 2023 Mar 27;38(12):e88. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2023.
7. Grieneisen M, Zhang M. A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature. Plos One, 2012;7(10): e44118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0044118
8. van Dalen H. How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists. Scientometrics, 2020;12: 1675–1694.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03786-x
9. Decullier E, Samson G, Huot L. Rétractations pour erreur et pour fraude. La Presse Medicale, 2012;41(9): 847-852. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lpm.2012.05.006
10. de Meis L, Velloso A, Lannes D, Carmo MS, de Meis C. The growing competition in Brazilian science: rites of passage, stress and burnout. Braz J Med Biol Res, 2023;36:1135–1141. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-879X2003000900001
11. Wray K, Andersen L. Retractions in Science. Scientometrics. 2018;117:2009–2019.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2922-4
12. De Rond M, Miller A. Publish or Perish: Bane or Boon of Academic Life? Journal of Management Inquiry. 1005;14(4): 321-329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850
13. Rivera I. Teixeira da Silva J. Retractions, Fake Peer Reviews, and Paper Mills. J Korean Med Sci, 2021;36(24): e165. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2021.36.e165
14. Herndon N. Research Fraud and the Publish or Perish World of Academia. Journal of Marketing Channels, 2016;23(3): 91–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1186469
15. Dadkhah M, Oermann MH, Hegedüs M, Raman R, Dávid LD. Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis (Berl). 2023;10(4):390-397. doi: 10.1515/dx-2023-0090
16. Cabanac G, Labbé C. Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literatura, Jasist. 2021;72(12): 1461-1476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495
17. Bell K, Kingori P, Mills D. Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews. Sci Technol Human Values. 2024; 49(1):78-104. DOI: 10.1177/01622439221112463.
18. Else H, Van Noorden R. The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science. Nature, 2021;591: 516-519. DOI: doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5
19. Abalkina A. Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia-based paper mill, Learned Publishing, 2023;36(4): 689-702. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1574
20. Cardenuto JP, Moreira D, Rocha A. Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis. PLoS ONE, 2024;19(10): e0312666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0312666
21. Candal-Pedreira C, Ross J, Ruano-Raviña A, Egilman D, Fernández E, Pérez-Ríos M. Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study. BMJ, 2022;28(379): e071517. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071517
22. Pérez-Neri I, Pineda C, Sandoval H. Threats to scholarly research integrity arising from paper mills: a rapid scoping review. Clin Rheumatol. 2022;41(7):2241-2248. DOI: 10.1007/s10067-022-06198-9.
23. Lei, F., Du, L., Dong, M. et al. Global retractions due to randomly generated content: Characterization and trends. Scientometrics 2024;129: 7943–7958 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-05172-3
24. Kendall G, da Silva JAT, Risks of abuse of large language models, like ChatGPT, in scientific publishing: Authorship, predatory publishing, and paper mills. Learned Publishing, 2024;37(1): 55–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1578
25. Kamali, N., Talebi Bezmin Abadi, A. & Rahimi, F. Plagiarism, Fake Peer-Review, and Duplication: Predominant Reasons Underlying Retractions of Iran-Affiliated Scientific Papers. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 3455–3463 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00274-6.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ezequiel Martínez-Rojas, Cristian Zahn-Muñoz (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
