In an analysis carried out jointly by the Publications Ethics Committee and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, over half of the 3,440 articles submitted over a two-year period were found to be fake. Open science practices, such as pre-registration of study plans and registered reports could promote transparency and accountability. Recognizing the importance of peer review and rewarding reviewers can also strengthen academic integrity and reduce the proliferation of suspect articles.

A global surge in fraudulent research papers, exceeding 10,000 retractions last year, has become an international scandal. Originating in China, the issue has spread to other regions, with "paper mills" producing fabricated studies. Bribes to editors and infiltration of fraudulent agents exacerbate the problem. Major publishers are taking action, but financial incentives for researchers to publish persist. The escalating prevalence of sham science is eroding the foundation of trustworthy scientific knowledge, prompting calls for systematic solutions to address this growing threat to the integrity of research.

A recent investigation by Science Magazine exposes a rise of paper mills resorting to bribery and corruption to secure publication of fake or substandard papers. These organizations pay off journal editors, leading to a network of deceitful practices that threaten the integrity of scholarly publishing. The investigation reveals widespread involvement of editors and prestigious institutions in accepting bribes. Such unethical practices bypass the peer-review process, undermining the quality and reliability of published research.

University of Florida (UF) launched an investigation after an internal report detailed a culture of fear among faculty members claiming political influence on campus as well as instances of pressure to destroy and delay publication of COVID-19 research data. The report was the result of a three-week investigation into academic freedom at UF after three full-time professors were prevented from testifying as paid experts in a lawsuit brought against the state over voting rights.

A recent study warns policy-makers in developing countries about the poor quality of research evaluation. The findings show the infiltration of journals suspected of predatory practices into the citation database Scopus. 324 journals that appear both in Beall’s lists and on Scopus and 164,000 articles published from 2015-17 were identified. As a result, the Scopus Content Selection and Advisory Board removed underperforming journals.

A significant number of faculty members are being accused of securing their academic promotions through predatory publications and other sub-standard means. To combat this unethical practice, the Ethiopian Ministry of Science and Higher Education (MoSHE) issued a new Harmonised Standard for Academic Staff Promotion in Public Universities in October 2020. The MoSHE says the safest way to avoid predatory publications is for academics to submit manuscripts to peer-reviewed journals indexed by databases such as Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed.

Unethical practices leading to ‘pay and publish trash’ culture is a growing problem in India. One of the research papers authored by two of the university’s professors and a research scholar was retracted due to concerns about the validity of results. According to the University Grants Commission (UGC), the percentage of research articles published in predatory journals is high. So, in order to “identify, continuously monitor and maintain UGC-CARE Reference List of Quality Journals across disciplines” a Consortium of Academic and Research Ethics was launched.

The Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science, and Technology (CREST) at Stellenbosch University conducted a study on the quality of South Africa’s research publications, which includes predatory publishing. 4,246 South African papers published in 48 journals were found to be predatory. Several studies suggest that some academics are falling into predatory publication traps due to the pressure to publish, get more grants and boost their academic reputation.