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.

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.

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 One of the research papers authored by two of the university’s professors and a research scholar was retracted due to concerns about the validity of results.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

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.

Singapore is at far greater risk of academic fraud now, given the increasingly competitive academic environment here.The danger has always been around, but the pressure to "publish or perish" has steadily been increasing in recent years, in the light of the rise of the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Nanyang Technological University (NTU) in international league tables, such as the closely watched Times Higher Education World University Rankings, over the past few years. A university's research quality and output play a key role in the assessment so academics have a compelling incentive to make a mark.

On September 24, 2017 the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant reported on an investigation into self-plagiarism (zelfplagiaat) that was conducted by a Nijmengen research group. The sociologist of science and his PhD student analysed 922 publications by Dutch researchers from recent years. In economics, 14 % of the papers contained text from previous publications of the author(s), in psychology the figure was 5 %. They even found a duplicate article republished with just one small change, and two highly similar articles by the same author in the same issue of a journal. They also found that authors who publish more papers are more likely to reuse text.

The Swedish organization in charge of reviewing research has judged that scandal-hit surgeon was guilty of scientific misconduct for misleadingly describing synthetic trachea operations as successful in a series of research articles. In 2014, four doctors at Stockholm's Karolinska University Hospital reported him to the then president of the Karolinska Institute (KI) for allegedly distorting the facts about his operations with artificial tracheas when presenting them in scientific journals. The articles were subsequently reviewed in 2015 by Uppsala University surgical sciences professor, who concluded that Macchiarini was guilty of research misconduct, but KI's overall assessment was to clear him and the co-authors.

In October 2015, a New York district court ruled in favor of the academic publisher Elsevier, which had accused Sci-Hub, a website that offers pirated versions of academic papers, of copyright violation. That decision allowed authorities to take down the site’s domain name, sci-hub.org. Suspending a domain name does not delete a website forever, though, it just prevents visitors from knowing where exactly to find it. It’s trivial enough to relaunch the same site under another domain, as Sci-Hub did.