Search Page

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.

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.

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 One of the research papers authored by two of the university’s professors and a research scholar was retracted due to concerns about the validity of results.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.

Given that scientists are judged in large part by the number of peer-reviewed papers they produce, it’s easy to understand the temptation to engage in salami publication. It’s officially discouraged, but it’s still very common to see researchers writing perhaps 3 or 4 papers based on a single project that could, realistically, have been one big paper. In an extreme case of salami slicing, the journal Archives of Iranian Medicine published a set of 33 papers about one study.

A survey of British institutions reveals that few have taken concrete steps to stop the much-criticized misuse of research metrics in the evaluation of academics’ work. The results offer an early insight into global efforts to clamp down on such practices.
DORA calls for panels responsible for academic promotion and hiring to stop misusing metrics such as the journal impact factor — which measures the average number of citations accumulated by papers in a given journal over two years — as a way to assess individual researchers. It urges panels to assess the content of papers and quality of research instead.