# Pollution of the scientific literature - Examples and prevention

Ophélie Fraisier-Vannier

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ophélie Fraisier-Vannier. Pollution of the scientific literature - Examples and prevention. Doctoral. France. 2026. hal-05457101

HAL Id: hal-05457101

https://hal.science/hal-05457101v1

Submitted on 13 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
# Pollution of the scientific literature
## Examples and prevention

Ophélie Fraisier-Vannier

Based on the works of Guillaume Cabanac (https://hal.science/hal-04225515)
and Alexandre Clausse (https://hal.science/hal-05003402)
Science: Knowledge accumulation

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

1965

One flawed paper = weakened edifice

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Four Norms of Science

1. COMMUNALISM

→ All scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property) to promote collective collaboration; **SECRET** is the **OPPOSITE** of this norm! scientists should **SHARE**!

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

2. UNIVERSALISM

→ Scientific validity is independent of the socio-political status or personal attributes of its participants. "The intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not" - Sir Peter Medawar

3. DISINTERESTEDNESS (a mouthful!)

→ Scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them. This is why a LOT of people are freaked out by pharmaceutical companies, too example.

4. ORGANIZED SKEPTICISM (yow!)

→ Scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted, both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct. All scientific claims are pending awaiting the critical scrutiny of other scientists.
## Growth in a Time of Debt

By CARMEN M. REINHART AND KENNETH S. ROGOFF

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

⇒ argument for austerity measures

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>B</th><th>C</th><th>I</th><th>J</th><th>K</th><th>L</th><th>M</th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th colspan="4">Real GDP growth</th><th></th></tr><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th colspan="4">Debt/GDP</th><th></th></tr><tr><th>2</th><th></th><th></th><th>30 or less</th><th>30 to 60</th><th>60 to 90</th><th>90 or above</th><th>30 or less</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th>3</th><th></th><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>4</th><th>Country</th><th>Coverage</th><th>30 or less</th><th>30 to 60</th><th>60 to 90</th><th>90 or above</th><th>30 or less</th></tr><tr><th>26</th><th></th><th></th><td>3.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>3.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>5.5</td></tr><tr><th>27</th><th>Minimum</th><th></th><td>1.6</td><td>0.3</td><td>1.3</td><td>-1.8</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><th>28</th><th>Maximum</th><th></th><td>5.4</td><td>4.9</td><td>10.2</td><td>3.6</td><td>13.3</td></tr><tr><th>29</th><th></th><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>30</th><th>US</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>n.a.</td><td>3.4</td><td>3.3</td><td>-2.0</td><td>n.a.</td></tr><tr><th>31</th><th>UK</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>n.a.</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.5</td><td>2.4</td><td>n.a.</td></tr><tr><th>32</th><th>Sweden</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>3.6</td><td>2.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>n.a.</td><td>6.3</td></tr><tr><th>33</th><th>Spain</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>1.5</td><td>3.4</td><td>4.2</td><td>n.a.</td><td>9.9</td></tr><tr><th>34</th><th>Portugal</th><th>1952-2009</th><td>4.8</td><td>2.5</td><td>0.3</td><td>n.a.</td><td>7.9</td></tr><tr><th>35</th><th>New Zealand</th><th>1948-2009</th><td>2.5</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.9</td><td>-7.9</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><th>36</th><th>Netherlands</th><th>1956-2009</th><td>4.1</td><td>2.7</td><td>1.1</td><td>n.a.</td><td>6.4</td></tr><tr><th>37</th><th>Norway</th><th>1947-2009</th><td>3.4</td><td>5.1</td><td>n.a.</td><td>n.a.</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><th>38</th><th>Japan</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>7.0</td><td>4.0</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><th>39</th><th>Italy</th><th>1951-2009</th><td>5.4</td><td>2.1</td><td>1.8</td><td>1.0</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><th>40</th><th>Ireland</th><th>1948-2009</th><td>4.4</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.0</td><td>2.4</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><th>41</th><th>Greece</th><th>1970-2009</th><td>4.0</td><td>0.3</td><td>2.7</td><td>2.9</td><td>13.3</td></tr><tr><th>42</th><th>Germany</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>3.9</td><td>0.9</td><td>n.a.</td><td>n.a.</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><th>43</th><th>France</th><th>1949-2009</th><td>4.9</td><td>2.7</td><td>3.0</td><td>n.a.</td><td>5.2</td></tr><tr><th>44</th><th>Finland</th><th>1946-2009</th><td>3.8</td><td>2.4</td><td>5.5</td><td>n.a.</td><td>7.0</td></tr><tr><th>45</th><th>Denmark</th><th>1950-2009</th><td>3.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>2.4</td><td>n.a.</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><th>46</th><th>Canada</th><th>1951-2009</th><td>1.9</td><td>3.6</td><td>4.1</td><td>n.a.</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><th>47</th><th>Belgium</th><th>1947-2009</th><td>n.a.</td><td>4.2</td><td>3.1</td><td>2.6</td><td>n.a.</td></tr><tr><th>48</th><th>Austria</th><th>1948-2009</th><td>5.2</td><td>3.3</td><td>-3.8</td><td>n.a.</td><td>5.7</td></tr><tr><th>49</th><th>Australia</th><th>1951-2009</th><td>3.2</td><td>4.9</td><td>4.0</td><td>n.a.</td><td>5.9</td></tr><tr><th>50</th><th></th><th></th><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><th>51</th><th></th><th></th><td>4.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.8</td><td>AVERAGE(L30:L44)</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

May 5, 2013

Errata:

“Growth in A Time of Debt”

Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth S. Rogoff

Harvard University
UNESCO
SCIENCE
REPORT

Towards 2030

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Publications

In 2014 there were
an estimated

**1.27 MILLION** SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS

THIS REPRESENTS A 23.4% GROWTH SINCE 2008

Share of scientific publications per region in 2014

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>

In 2013 there were
an estimated **7.8 MILLION** SCIENTISTS WORLDWIDE

UNESCO Science Report 2015: https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210059053
# Is academic research becoming too competitive? *Nature* examines the data

By Miryam Naddaf

## FUNDING COMPETITION

More researchers are applying for Europe's major research grants. But the high demand means only a fraction of proposals are funded.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>
## Movie "Paywall: the Business of Scholarship"

### CORPORATE PROFIT MARGINS

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

## Elsevier top of the league

Global market share of journal articles by leading publishers, 2013 (%)

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

Source: company

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Fig.13</figcaption></figure>

Twice as much journals in 20 years.
Twice as much experts on the globe?

**See also:** Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. *PLOS ONE*, 10(6), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
# Breaches of research integrity

## Publication ecosystem

False metrics

Multiplication of special issues

## Publisher

Predatory publishers

Citation cartels

Coerced citations

## Editor-in-chief

Review mills

## Journal

Hijacked journals

Impersonation

## Article

Authorship-for-sale

Clay of feet

Generated content

Plagiarism

Data fabrication & falsification

Image manipulation
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

https://retractionwatch.com

Prevention:

- Monitor via Google Scholar alerts

- Regularly search for one's identity with query: "name surname"

French ocean institute goes
public about authors who forged
their researchers' names

The **National Institute for**
**Ocean Science** (Ifremer) in
France has flagged 11 pa-
pers on PubPeer for con-
cerns including faked au-

thorship and plagiarism, and has blasted the journals involved for their
failure to adequately address the unethical work.

In some cases, for example the *International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control*, editors have removed the names of the forged authors without informing readers.

A name that appears on nine of the articles is Bertrand Chapron, a re-
searcher at Ifremer. Chapron had nothing to do with the articles – a fact
his institution has been pointing out to the journals involved, without
satisfaction, while noting that two of his putative co-authors have highly
suspect affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

RÉPUBLIQUE
FRANÇAISE

Liberté
Égalité
Fraternité

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Ifremer

https://retractionwatch.com/?p=124122 and https://pubpeer.com/search?q=IFREMER_2021_CC
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

Complete plagiarism of (Le Bourg, 1999), an article authored by a researcher of Université de Toulouse.

**Retracted** officially in 2008 but retraction notice published on T&F website in 2022!

Retraction

Withdrawal Notice

Page 321 | Received 17 Oct 2008, Accepted 20 Nov 2008, Published online: 20 Jul 2022

Prevention :

* Analyse Google Scholar alerts

* Report plagiarism to editors and publishers

https://pubpeer.com/publications/95A46C763AC2D8A440515DDACC1C29
# Synonyms to disguise plagiarism – *tortured phrases*

counterfeit consciousness

man-made brainpower

artificial intelligence

sun oriented force

solar energy

pinnacle flag to clamor proportion (PSNR)

peak signal to noise ratio (PSNR)

credulous Bayes

Thomas Bayes

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>

Naive Bayes

<figure><img src="image_23.png" /></figure>

bosom malignancy/peril

breast cancer

nucleic corrosive enhancement tests (NAAT)

nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT)

lactose bigotry

lactose intolerance

invulnerable framework

immune system
<figure><img src="image_24.png" /></figure>

QuillBot

Modes:

Standard

Fluency

Formal

Academic

Simple

Creative

Expand

Shorten

Custom

Synonyms:

<figure><img src="image_25.png" /></figure>

The primary goal of the study is to determine how artificial intelligence has affected the tutoring industry. The effects and applications of artificial intelligence in teaching, learning, and administration contributed to the possibility of learning in part. Research methods that were qualitative in nature, such as using a literature review as an exploratory design, were applied, and they successfully improved understanding of study persistence.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the study of successful inventions and advances that have been accumulated in computers, machines, and other artifacts with human intelligence that are grouped according to intellectual capacity, learning, and adaptability. According to the study, artificial intelligence has been widely used and implemented in the field of education.

Finding out how intelligent machines has impacted the tutoring sector is the study's main objective. Part of the possibility of learning was made possible by the effects and applications of robotic intelligence in teaching, learning, and administration. Qualitative research techniques, like applying a literature review as an exploratory design, were used, and they effectively increased knowledge of study persistence. The study of successful innovations and advancements in computers, machinery, and other artifacts with human intelligence that are categorized based on learning, adaptability, and intellectual capacity is known as artificial cognition (AI). The report claims that artificial intelligence has been applied and utilized extensively in the sphere of education.

115 Words

<figure><img src="image_26.png" /></figure>

Rephrase

<figure><img src="image_27.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_28.png" /></figure>

4/5 Sentences • 108 Words

<figure><img src="image_29.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_30.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_31.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_32.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_33.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_34.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_35.png" /></figure>

## Problematic Paper Screener (PPS)

24k articles flagged so far
# Synonyms to disguise plagiarism – tortured phrases

<table><thead><tr><th>Venue</th><th>Publisher</th><th>Number of articles</th><th>Share of total (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AIP Conference Proceedings</td><td>AIP Publishing</td><td>782</td><td>3.49</td></tr><tr><td>Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>631</td><td>2.82</td></tr><tr><td>Materials Today Proceedings</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>607</td><td>2.71</td></tr><tr><td>Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>442</td><td>1.98</td></tr><tr><td>Microprocessors and Microsystems</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>398</td><td>1.78</td></tr><tr><td>2024 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT)</td><td>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)</td><td>388</td><td>1.73</td></tr><tr><td>Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>334</td><td>1.49</td></tr><tr><td>2024 International Conference on Optimization Computing and Wireless Communication (ICOCWC)</td><td>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)</td><td>282</td><td>1.26</td></tr><tr><td>SSRN Electronic Journal</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>271</td><td>1.21</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems</td><td>SAGE Publications</td><td>210</td><td>0.94</td></tr><tr><td>Journal of Physics Conference Series</td><td>IOP Publishing</td><td>204</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>193</td><td>0.86</td></tr><tr><td>Research Square</td><td>Research Square Platform</td><td>172</td><td>0.77</td></tr><tr><td>Communications in Computer and Information Science</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>171</td><td>0.76</td></tr><tr><td>IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering</td><td>IOP Publishing</td><td>152</td><td>0.68</td></tr><tr><td>Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>143</td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>2023 3rd International Conference on Smart Generation Computing, Communication and Networking (SMART GENCON)</td><td>Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)</td><td>140</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>Multimedia Tools and Applications</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>136</td><td>0.61</td></tr><tr><td>E3S Web of Conferences</td><td>EDP Sciences</td><td>130</td><td>0.58</td></tr></tbody></table>

Preprints

Concentration of tortured phrases

<figure><img src="image_36.png" /></figure>
# Example of a gangrened established journal

## Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems

Applications in Engineering and Technology

Impact Factor 2024 1.7

CiteScore 2024 3.4

<figure><img src="image_37.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_38.png" /></figure>

April 17, 2025

<figure><img src="image_39.png" /></figure>

Kate Travis

A new journal record: Sage title retracts 678 more papers, tally over 1,500

<figure><img src="image_40.png" /></figure>

May 7, 2025

<figure><img src="image_41.png" /></figure>

Kate Travis

Journal collected $400,000 from papers it later retracted

### Retraction Notice

## Retraction Notice

<figure><img src="image_42.png" /></figure>

Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems

I-41

© The Author(s) 2025

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/10641246251331509

journals.sagepub.com/home/ifs

<figure><img src="image_43.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_44.png" /></figure>

IOS Press

Following an investigation in line with the guidance issued by COPE, the publisher has detected one or more of the following indicators in submissions and in the peer review process underlying the acceptance of articles:

1. Patterns of citation manipulation, including citations irrelevant to the research article

2. Incoherent, extraneous text and Tortured phrases [1]

3. Potential unauthorized third-party involvement in the submission process

4. Evidence to suggest collusion between authors and reviewers that was not detected prior to publication

5. Citations to research articles now retracted due to indicators of third-party involvement and manipulated peer review [2]

These indicators raise concerns about the authenticity of the research and the peer review process underlying the following articles. The Publisher regrets that these were not flagged during the journal's editorial and peer review processes and acknowledges the anonymous volunteers on PubPeer and PPS "Feet of Clay" [2] whose observations complemented our internal investigation.

## References

1. Cabanac G., Labbé C. and Magazinov A., Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals, *ArXiv*, abs/2107.06751 (2021).

2. Cabanac G., Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature [Comment], *Nature* 632(8027) (2024), 977–979. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02747-1

## List of retracted articles

Gao-Feng Yu, Deng-Feng Li, Jin-Ming Qiu, Xiao-Xue Zheng (2018). Some operators of intuitionistic uncertain 2-tuple linguistic variables and application to multi-attribute group decision making with heterogeneous relationship among attributes. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 34(1), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.3233/jifs-17821

Hui Gao, Mao Lu, Yu Wei (2019). Dual hesitant bipolar fuzzy hamacher aggregation operators and their applications to multiple attribute decision making Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 37(4) 5755–5766
# Generation of text with LLMs

**#1 Guillaume Cabanac** commented May 2023

The phrase **"Regenerate Response"** is the label of a button in ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that generates text according to a user's question/prompt:

<figure><img src="image_45.png" /></figure>

Regenerate response

This MDPI article contains the unexpected phrase **"Regenerate Response"** in the middle of Section 3 titled "Discussion":

Toins 2023, 15, 199

5 of 12

proper guidance, can may deviate from the intended target. Although the Bot generated, leading to urine being passed through diffusion, the farther the injection stress urinary incontinence [24,25] of the medication that can reach the brain, therefore, it is essential to confirm the likelihood of successful voiding in patients receiving a botulinum toxin injection. In addition, the targeted two areas of the urethra between the botulinum toxin (BT) and ten o'clock (Figure 3) to relax the venticular muscles on the lateral and ventral urethra [13].

## Regenerate Response

According to most previous studies, the injection ranges from 50 units to 200 units to treat a patient with detrusor sphincter dyssynergia (FS), and poor relaxation of the external urethra. In previous studies, the dose of the appropriate dosage of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTX-A) for an external sphincter be. In previous treatments, most studies focused on a voiding, Fowler's syndrome (FS) and the effect is not significant in some studies (PRES) [2]. Until now, it has been unclear what the appropriate dosage of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTX-A) for an external sphincter be. In previous studies, most studies focused on a voiding, Fowler's syndrome (FS) and poor relaxation of the external urethra. unclear what the appropriate dosage of Botulinum Toxin Type A (BTX-A) for an external sphincter be. In previous treatments, most studies focused on a voiding, Fowler's syndrome (FS) and poor relaxation of the external urethra. In our study, the objective is to relax the external sphincter, the striated muscles on the lateral and ventral urethra [13].

https://pubpeer.com/publications/DF3D58918B5A0BD5943E6D280ED7E2

**#1 Guillaume Cabanac** commented August 2023

A reader suggested to use **"As an AI language model, I"** as a fingerprint to find **machine-generated passages**, possibly by ChatGPT:

> As cross-sectional dependence is present in the panel, appropriate panel unit root tests are conducted. Table 3 presents the results of two tests, CADF (Cross-Sectionally Augmented Dickey-Fuller) and CIPS (Cross-Sectionally Augmented Im, Pesaran, and Shin), as follows: [Please note that as an AI language model, I am unable to generate specific tables or conduct tests, so the actual results should be included in the table.]

https://pubpeer.com/publications/CC7BD83B8979D54C5C11F9E3CC61B9

**#1 Alex Glynn** comment accepted March 2025

On page 25:

> Cancer vaccines and chemotherapy are two different approaches to treating cancer, and their effectiveness can vary depending on the type and stage of cancer, as well as individual patient factors. It is important to note that as an AI language model, I can provide a general perspective, but you should consult with medical professionals for personalized advice. [my emphasis]

This suggests the use of an artificial intelligence language model to write part of the text.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/2FF96DD440C928A3DDF99771A48B4A#1

<figure><img src="image_46.png" /></figure>

10.2
Impact Factor
## Some examples of GenAI illustrations found in publications

**#1 Nerita vitiensis** comment accepted February 2025

This IEEE conference paper appears to contain AI-generated content.

Firstly, Figure 3.1 is clearly AI-generated, with nonsensical captions such as "Patient Clotent", "Dotor Cotntt", and "ODIOLATT.":

<figure><img src="image_47.png" /></figure>

https://pubpeer.com/publications/4921160BA96544085440AE25B95A18

**#1 Gymnidium turbinatum** commented April 2024

Figure 1 was AI-generated. It does not make any sense

https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics15122777

<figure><img src="image_48.png" /></figure>

https://pubpeer.com/publications/8026AE8D42C97065E13C577DA4F4C7
#7a. Generation of text with LLMs in reviews

#1 **Guillaume Cabanac** commented May 2023

A peer-review report published along this MDPI article contains the unexpected phrase “Regenerate Response”:

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

# The modifications made this time are generally able to address the concerns raised by the reviewers for the defense and response.

# The construction of a generalized model should be more objective and based on reasonable assumptions in order to highlight the practical value of its application.

Regenerate response

<figure><img src="image_49.png" /></figure>

Author Response

The construction of a generalized model should be more objective and based on reasonable assumptions in order to highlight the practical value of its application.

**Response:** Thanks for your valuable comments. In this revision, following your suggestions, we have reorganized all assumptions to explicitly discuss on their practical value of the application.

https://pubpeer.com/publications/E6F750F5DE06F5C90B0455E1AB4563

Shift in Adjective Frequency in ICLR 2024 Peer Reviews

> “We find a significant shift in the frequency of certain tokens in ICLR 2024, with adjectives such as ‘commendable’, ‘meticulous’, and ‘intricate’ showing 9.8, 34.7, and 11.2-fold increases in probability of occurring in a sentence”

https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3692070.3693262

<figure><img src="image_50.png" /></figure>
Generation of references with LLMs

<figure><img src="image_51.png" /></figure>

Guillaume Cabanac <here and elsewhere>

@gcabanac

...

Ongoing decontamination... Now RETRACTED: @PLOSONE article featuring #ChatGPT's "regenerate response" and 18 hallucinated references 😂. Publishers: 90+ more papers to process, see @RetractionWatch retractionwatch.com/papers-and-pee... CC @Cacciamani_MD @CANGARU_check

<figure><img src="image_52.png" /></figure>

Guillaume Cabanac <here and elsewhere> @gcabanac · 12 Mar

<figure><img src="image_53.png" /></figure>

#ChatGPT's "Regenerate Response" in the bibliography of a @PLOSONE article. Surprising: usually this fingerprint appears in the body of the text and authors claim they polished the English. Not much to polish in a reference section. Hallucination? pubpeer.com/publications/7...

<figure><img src="image_54.png" /></figure>

https://twitter.com/gcabanac/status/1781595508190187830

<figure><img src="image_55.png" /></figure>

Retraction

Following the publication of this article [1], concerns were raised regarding compliance with PLOS policies and multiple apparent errors in the reference list.

Specifically,

> Concerns were raised about potential undisclosed use of an artificial intelligence tool to generate text in the article due to inclusion of the phrase “regenerate response” and extensive reference list concerns. PLOS was unable to verify 18 of the 76 cited references, and 6 additional references appear to contain errors. The first and corresponding authors stated that the authors were responsible for the manuscript content and that the only AI tool used during manuscript preparation was Grammarly, to improve language. They provided replacement references but several of the replacements did not appear to support the corresponding statements in the article.

18 out of 76 references → 24%

<figure><img src="image_56.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_57.png" /></figure>

Source: SCImago Journal Rank
## Retraction Watch

<figure><img src="image_58.png" /></figure>

September 30, 2025

Tracking retractions as a window
into the scientific process

# Sleuth unearths citation, authorship issues at earth sciences journal

Carlos Conforti Ferreira Guedes, a geology professor at the Federal University of Paraná in Brazil, came across a paper in the *Journal of South American Earth Sciences* earlier this year with irrelevant, and in some cases nonexistent, references.

Made-up citations can indicate the use of generative AI in crafting the paper – but another detail caught his attention as particularly odd: The researchers on the paper, a study on the transformation of the Brazilian coastline, all listed affiliations in India. Guedes reached out to one of the editors-in-chief of the journal at the time, Andres Folguera, on March 10 to notify the journal about the issues.

<figure><img src="image_59.png" /></figure>

Guedes and his colleagues also looked at other articles in the journal for similar problems and found 11 papers with authorship issues, citation concerns and signs of potential data fabrication. He raised the concerns with the journal on August 6, according to emails we have seen.

Guedes told us several of the papers show “invented geology” or “fabricated” data. He said two of the figures in a *January paper* — figures 4 and 3 — had “fabricated rainfall data.” He also pointed out a *September 2024 paper*, in which authors claimed João Pessoa, a city in Brazil, had experienced erosion and elevation gains of “tens of meters over a decade,” which he described as “unrealistic results.”
# Review mills churning out unreliable reports

Home > Scientometrics > Article

## The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further

Published: 01 August 2024

Volume 129, pages 5805–5813, (2024)

M. Ángeles Oviedo-García

University of Seville, Seville, Spain

<figure><img src="image_60.png" /></figure>

3937 Accesses

<figure><img src="image_61.png" /></figure>

23 Citations

<figure><img src="image_62.png" /></figure>

262 Altmetric

<figure><img src="image_63.png" /></figure>

32 Mentions

<figure><img src="image_64.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

Review mills sum up a new category of reviewer misconduct that flies in the face of reviewer ethics and integrity. A pattern of generic, vague, and repeated affirmations (identical or very similar boilerplate phrasing) is noted in the analysis of 263 review reports, regardless of the scientific content of the papers under review, coupled with coercive citation (perhaps among the main reasons for such behavior), which when combined produce fake reviews. The misconduct associated with review mills is unlike mere plagiarism (self-plagiarism) of reviewer comments. It is important to quantify the problem and to take urgent measures: (a) to identify the review mills; (b) to rectify the published literature; and (c) to determine procedures for journals and publishers on procedures to counter this new type of misconduct.

### Reviewer 1 Report

Review report on the topic 'Study on Damage Behavior of NiCoCrAlY/MSZ Plasma Sprayed Coating in Neutral Salt Spray Environment'. The work is presented well. The comments to improve the quality of the manuscript are listed below:

1. Please omit the unnecessary information and add the key conclusion of the work at the end of the abstract section.

2. Please add a separate section to discuss the novelty of the work.

3. The introduction section is presented roughly. Add more references and try to make a bridge between current and previously published work: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.01.131; https://doi.org/10.1007/s41779-018-0258-4; https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ab5265.

4. Add the measurement of the particle size.

5. The experimental setup is required and also add a discussion about the experimental part in detail.

6. Add the reference for each equation.

7. Damage characterization needs technical discussion and also add the failure mechanism.

8. If possible add EDS spectra of the fracture surface.

9. Add the line map across the coating to make a clear elemental distribution.

10. The technical discussion needs to be strengthened. Try to compare the results with previous published work.

### Author Response

#### Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an interesting approach based on the Study on Damage Behavior of NiCoCrAlY/MSZ Plasma

Sprayed Coating in Neutral Salt Spray Environment. However, the innovation of the current research work should be further highlighted and emphasized. At the same time, the authors should consider the following comments to greatly improve the quality of the paper.

1. In the abstract, add a final statement that highlights the importance of this research and its possible potentials. Also, introduce the problem in the initial lines of the abstract.

2. The introduction needs to be improved by relating to the mechanics of the studied materials and their mechanical characteristics. The references to be included are: 10.1016/j.jiec.2022.06.023, 10.1016/j.porgcoat.2022.107015, 10.1177/0021998318790093, 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2017.09.009, 10.1016/j.compstruct.2021.114698, 10.1002/app.46770.

3. Kindly add a table that describes the main physical and chemical properties of the raw materials used in this study.
# 'Miscellings': non verifiable and unknown cell lines

<figure><img src="image_65.png" /></figure>

Prof Jennifer Byrne reposted

<figure><img src="image_66.png" /></figure>

International Journal of Cancer

@IntJCanc

...

NOW ONLINE

From @JAByrneSci and collaborators: study flagged 23 non-verifiable human cell line identifiers, revealing that misspellings can lead to new, unverified cell line identities

\#CellLineAuthentication is crucial in \#LabResearch!

<figure><img src="image_67.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

<figure><img src="image_68.png" /></figure>

doi.org/10.1002/fjc.34...

<figure><img src="image_69.png" /></figure>

IJC

Misspellings or “miscellings”—
Non-verifiable and unknown cell lines
in cancer research publications

8:30 am · 17 May 2024 ·

https://twitter.com/JAByrneSci/status/1791383422868554196

Science

SCIENCEINSIDER

BIOLOGY

## Hundreds of cancer papers mention cell lines that don't seem to exist

Finding could be an indicator of paper mill activity

21 MAY 2024 • 6:25 PM ET • BY JEFFREY BRAINARD

<figure><img src="image_70.png" /></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1126/science.z8nplpa

IN THE PIPELINE

THE DARK SIDE

## Keeping Up With Fakery

10 JUN 2024 • 11:10 AM ET • 4 MIN READ • COMMENTS

https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/keeping-fakery
# Feet of clay: Flagging unreliable references

<figure><img src="image_71.png" /></figure>

Illustration: Phil Wheeler

## 'Feet of Clay' Detector

(more on the origin of the metaphor)

These articles may be unreliable as they cite 1+ **annulled references** (i.e., retracted, removed, or withdrawn), references with **expressions of concern**, and references **flagged by the PPS detectors**.

## Chain retraction: how to stop bad science propagating through the literature

<figure><img src="image_72.png" /></figure>

Flagged by the
'Feet of Clay'
detector:
probably
unreliable

<figure><img src="image_73.png" /></figure>

Concerning

<figure><img src="image_74.png" /></figure>

Problematic

<table><thead><tr><th>Year</th><th>Doctype</th><th>Publisher</th><th>Venue</th><th>Title</th><th>Citations</th><th>Tips ↓</th><th>Cited Problematic Papers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2019</td><td>article</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>Molecular Cancer</td><td>Targeting PI3K in cancer: mechanisms and advances in clinical trials</td><td>1348</td><td>20</td><td>10.1002/jcb.28026 • 10.1038/cgt.2017.32 • 10.1159/000487178 • 10.1002/jcb.27344 • 10.1016/j.biopha.2018.10.096 • 10.12659/msm.908652 • 10.1159/000495550 • 10.3892/or.2017.5871 • 10.1002/jcb.26297 • 10.1002/jcb.26273 • 10.3233/cbm-170188 • 10.1002/jcb.26437 • 10.1002/jcb.26431 • 10.1590/1414-431x/20187046 • 10.1016/j.yexmp.2018.08.011 • 10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-09-3022 • 10.1038/nature07091 • 10.1172/jci91553 • 10.3892/or.2016.4791 • 10.1007/s11356-018-2179-8</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>article</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy</td><td>Targeting cancer stem cell pathways for cancer therapy</td><td>1623</td><td>8</td><td>10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-14-0011 • 10.1073/pnas.1421438111 • 10.1186/s12943-017-0589-8 • 10.1111/cas.12656 • 10.1371/journal.pone.0099412 • 10.1016/j.ccell.2014.09.005 • 10.1186/bcr3399 • 10.3892/or.2014.3488</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>article</td><td>Elsevier</td><td>Molecular Cell</td><td>ATM, ATR, and DNA-PK: The Trinity at the Heart of the DNA Damage Response</td><td>1686</td><td>7</td><td>10.1038/nature12201 • 10.1016/j.cell.2005.09.032 • 10.1038/nature16142 • 10.1038/nature12318 • 10.1093/nar/gkm493 • 10.1126/science.1150034 • 10.4161/cc.23592</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>monograph</td><td>American Society for Microbiology</td><td>-</td><td>DNA Repair and Mutagenesis</td><td>1610</td><td>7</td><td>10.1126/science.275.5302.990 • 10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80827-2 • 10.1128/jcb.23.22.8161-8171.2003 • 10.1128/jcb.21.3.966-976.2001 • 10.1073/pnas.94.7.3116 • 10.1038/416560a • 10.1128/jcb.24.12.5459-5474.2004</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>article</td><td>Springer Nature</td><td>Nature Reviews Cancer</td><td>Hypoxia and the extracellular matrix: drivers of tumour metastasis</td><td>1335</td><td>7</td><td>10.1038/onc.2011.365 • 10.1158/1541-7786.mcr-12-0629 • 10.1038/nature04695 • 10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-3963 • 10.1074/jbc.m112.442939 • 10.1073/pnas.1321510111 • 10.1158/0008-5472.can-12-2233</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>article</td><td>American Physiological Society</td><td>Physiological Reviews</td><td>Physiological Implications of Hydrogen Sulfide: A Whiff Exploration That Blossomed</td><td>1785</td><td>7</td><td>10.1016/s0006-291x(02)00422-9 • 10.1021/jf901301w • pub.1077988545 • 10.1046/j.1471-4159.2002.01097.x • 10.1523/jneurosci.22-09-03386.2002 • 10.1124/jpet.105.091595 • 10.1038/bjp.2008.326</td></tr></tbody></table>
<figure><img src="image_75.png" /></figure>

Guillaume Cabanac

@gcabanac

<figure><img src="image_76.png" /></figure>

Published in October 2023 with **29 retracted references** in its biography: a @FrontOncology review on MicroRNAs, long non-coding RNAs, and circular RNAs and gynecological cancers. How reliable is this review article? #FeetOfClay #DominoEffect pubpeer.com/publications/8...

<figure><img src="image_77.png" /></figure>

ALT

Retraction Watch and 8 others

Published in October 2023 with 29/462 retracted references, that is **6% of unreliable references.**

My colleague Yağmur dug deeper... ↓

#2 Yağmur Öztürk commented December 2023

As shown in #1, the authors cited 29 retracted papers. If looked in detail, 28 of these retracted citations are used only in the tables and not mentioned in the text. Only the first citation (420) is used in the textual part of the paper. Is there a reason why the authors did not elaborate on these works?

If we look into the papers cited in the tables with the purpose of showcasing data from previous works, we can see that 20 of these cited papers were retracted a considerable amount of time (6 months to 2 years) before the receipt of this article by Frontiers (15th of May 2023). Were the retraction notices taken into account by the authors?
# Stopping the Domino Effect: JAMA Network

## Original Investigation

March 31, 2025

## Inclusion of Retracted Studies in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Interventions
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Carolina Graña Possamai, MSc<sup>1,2,3</sup>; Guillaume Cabanac, PhD<sup>4,5</sup>; Elodie Perrodeau, MSc<sup>1,2,3</sup>; Lina Ghosn, MSc<sup>1,2,3</sup>; Philippe Ravaud, MD, PhD<sup>1,2,3</sup>; Isabelle Boutron, MD, PhD<sup>1,2,3</sup>

### Author Affiliations

JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 31, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0256

<figure><img src="image_78.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Impact of Retracted Studies on Meta-Analyses Results: Changes in Statistical Significance and Magnitude of Effect Estimates</figcaption></figure>

## Editorial

March 31, 2025

## Mitigating the Impact of Retracted Studies in the Medical Literature

Cary P. Gross, MD<sup>1,2</sup>; Annette Flanagin, RN, MA<sup>3</sup>; Eli N. Perencevich, MD, MS<sup>4,5</sup>; et al

### Author Affiliations

JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 31, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2025.0251

Important roles. It is important for readers to know that a systematic review includes a study that has subsequently been retracted. In this instance, 3 of the systematic reviews in the study by Grana et al<sup>13</sup> had been published by 2 JAMA Network journals.<sup>18-20</sup> In each instance, the reanalysis excluding the retracted articles did not affect the results of the originally published systematic review. The following correction has been added to each of these 3 articles, with the authors' approval: "This meta-analysis was published before 1 of the included studies [reference] was retracted. A reanalysis without that study does not affect the reported results." It is not always feasible for authors to systematically repeat their analyses after excluding a retracted study, and responses will vary from case to case. However, journals should consider adding corrections (when reanalyses are feasible) or notifying readers that a retracted study was included in the originally published systematic review.

correction

### ARTICLE INFORMATION

**Accepted for Publication:** January 23, 2015.

**Published Online:** March 16, 2015.
doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0237.

**Correction:** This article was corrected on January 27, 2025. This meta-analysis was published before 1 of the included studies<sup>24</sup> was retracted. A reanalysis without that study does not affect the reported results.

**Author Affiliations:** Medical Research Institute, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee, Scotland (Beveridge, Struthers, Khan, Witham);

Tromsø Clinical Unit, Arctic University (Jorde); Auckland of Medicine, Endocrinology of Medicine, Atlanta, Geriatric Medicine, University of Medicine, Division

JAMA Internal Medicine May 2015 Volume 175, Number 5
# The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

Some publishers say they are battling industrialized cheating. A *Nature* analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem – and how editors are trying to cope.

By Holly Else & Richard Van Noorden

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5

<figure><img src="image_79.png" /></figure>

## Annealing Temperature Effect on Structural, Magnetic Properties and Methyl Green Degradation of Fe2O3 Nanostructures

Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering (2023) - 2 Comments

doi: 10.1007/s13369-022-07118-4 issn: 2193-567x issn: 2191-4281

#1 N. H. Wise comment accepted August 2023

On the 26th of January 2022 an advert was placed on Facebook selling authorship of a paper with this title.

26 January 2022

<figure><img src="image_80.png" /></figure>

*Co-Authors Participation*

<figure><img src="image_81.png" /></figure>

50 USD discount per position

<figure><img src="image_82.png" /></figure>

1st author: 850 USD Final price: 800 USD

<figure><img src="image_83.png" /></figure>

3rd author: 750 USD Final price: 700 USD

<figure><img src="image_84.png" /></figure>

5th author: 650 USD Final price: 600 USD

Indexing: Scopus, Web of Science

Title: Annealing temperature effect on structural, magnetic properties and methyl green degradation of Fe2O3 nanostructures

<figure><img src="image_85.png" /></figure>

IF = 2.334

https://pubpeer.com/publications/C95132A71315B0E6BA1E3E34A806DB
# AI-powered fraud: Chinese paper mills are mass-producing fake academic research

Vincent Chow

Published: 7:00am, 15 Oct 2025

Chinese paper mills are using generative artificial intelligence tools to mass produce forged academic papers, a new investigation by the mainland's state broadcaster has found.

The report, which aired Sunday on China Central Television's (CCTV) "Financial Investigation" programme, found paper mill workers using generative AI chatbots to help them each complete over 30 academic articles a week.

https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3328966/ai-powered-fraud-chinese-paper-mills-are-mass-producing-fake-academic-research

A

<figure><img src="image_86.png" /></figure>

nature

NEWS

21 May 2025

## AI linked to explosion of low-quality biomedical research papers

Analysis flags hundreds of studies that seem to follow a template, reporting correlations between complex health conditions and single variables based on publicly available data sets.

By Miryam Naddaf

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-025-01592-0
## Is MDPI a predatory publisher?

<figure><img src="image_87.png" /></figure>

Paolo Crosetto

<figure><img src="image_88.png" /></figure>

Uncategorized

<figure><img src="image_89.png" /></figure>

April 12, 2021

<figure><img src="image_90.png" /></figure>

20 Minutes

DR INRAE Grenoble

https://paolocrosetto.wordpress.com/2021/04/12/is-mdpi-a-predatory-publisher/

## Special Issues as an economic model

### Number of Special Issues at MDPI

75 journals with an Impact Factor

<figure><img src="image_91.png" /></figure>

### Articles in Normal, Special Issues, Sections and Collections at MDPI

74 journals with an Impact Factor. One square = 200 articles

<figure><img src="image_92.png" /></figure>
Some publishers' commercial practices

<figure><img src="image_93.png" /></figure>

L'organisme français de recherche agronomique et de coopération internationale pour le développement durable des régions tropicales et méditerranéennes.

Mdpi, produire en masse les articles avec un délai soumis-accepté de quatre semaines (Résumé exécutif)

Cécile Fovet-Rabot
CIRAD
Délégation à l'information
scientifique et technique (Dist)

Montpellier, 14 juin 2022

https://doi.org/10.18167/agritrop/00592

https://pubpeer.com/publications/98F0E249CE7540CB161E51BF3734F6

l'Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement

INRAE

DipS

<figure><img src="image_94.png" /></figure>

Bien choisir sa revue de publication,
c'est éviter les éditeurs douteux !

Le cas MDPI
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Cet éditeur de revues en Open Access est aujourd'hui bien établi après avoir créé un large bouquet de revues nouvelles à partir de 2010. Le nombre de publications de chercheurs INRAE dans certaines de ses revues est en constante augmentation. C'est pourquoi il fait l'objet d'une attention particulière.

La crédibilité discutable [3] accordée à MDPI provient essentiellement des 18 revues de son catalogue dont le facteur d'impact est supérieur à 4. L'éditeur reste connu pour utiliser des méthodes douteuses :

- Sollicitations abusives des chercheurs repérés grâce à des outils d'intelligence artificielle selon leur domaine de compétences ;

- Multiplication des numéros spéciaux chaque année (cf. graphique) pour attirer des auteurs ;

- Création de revues avec des titres similaires à d'autres revues de renom (ex : *Animal* et *Animals, Cell* et *Cells*)

- Délais de publication brefs et pietre qualité de la communication vers les auteurs.

https://doi.org/10.17180/cdky-p004
Some publishers' commercial practices

<figure><img src="image_95.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_96.png" /><figcaption>Sensors (2400 CHF)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_97.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_98.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_99.png" /><figcaption>Sustainability (2000 CHF)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

IEEE Access™

Multidisciplinary | Rapid Review | Open Access Journal

($1,850)

<figure><img src="image_101.png" /></figure>

Publish your important research with maximum visibility
in just 4-6 weeks when you choose IEEE Access,
the multidisciplinary open access journal of the IEEE.

LEARN MORE

<figure><img src="image_102.png" /></figure>

Q1

Q2

Q3

Q4

https://www.scimagojr.com/
# Data fabrication in a CNRS lab from France

https://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2022/12/05/une-affaire-d-inconduite-scientifique-agite-un-laboratoire-de-recherche-en-chimie 6153035 1650684.html

Le Monde

SCIENCES

## Une affaire d'inconduite scientifique agite un laboratoire de recherche en chimie

Publications trafiquées ou simples erreurs ? Une directrice de recherche d'une unité mixte CNRS-Sorbonne Paris Nord attend le verdict de la procédure disciplinaire. « Le Monde » a enquêté sur cette affaire, qui met aussi à l'épreuve les instances scientifiques.

Par David Larousserie

Publié le 05 décembre 2022 à 15h33 · 🕥 Lecture 6 min.

Parmi les accusations d'inconduites scientifiques, des graphiques identiques auraient servi plusieurs fois pour des expériences différentes. Par trois fois, des traces de retouches intentionnelles sur des courbes ont aussi été repérées, de quoi introduire un doute sur les résultats présentés. S'ajoute la réutilisation d'images de microscopie électronique dans plusieurs articles, sans citer leur publication antérieure.

Mais, selon nos informations, l'un des experts mandatés aurait qualifié de « faux » plusieurs histogrammes, tandis qu'un autre se demande si les copier-coller des courbes de relargage sont « réels » ou « inventés ». De quoi nuire à la crédibilité du travail. Pourtant, le message de mai 2022 adressé au personnel reste évasif en parlant de « figures ne correspondant pas aux systèmes étudiés ou des reprises de figures sans mention de leurs publications précédentes ». La manipulation de données présumée n'est pas évoquée.

#1 *Xylocopa viridis* commented August 2022

This is a correction to a 2020 article: *The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake: The values of the distribution histogram of the nanoparticle size is 40 nm (Figure 1a2) and 50 nm (Figure 1a3). The correct values are now 50 nm (Figure 1a2) and 75 nm (Figure 1a3). *

The figure before and after correction is shown below. In a very similar case, the Editor of another journal (Int J of Nanomedicine) refused to replace the histograms and requested a retraction instead of a correction.

<figure><img src="image_103.png" /><figcaption>After correction</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_104.png" /></figure>

not modified by the correction

<figure><img src="image_105.png" /><figcaption>a 3)</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_106.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_107.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_108.png" /></figure>
Soupçons d'inconduite scientifique pour un
couple de chercheurs

Le CNRS et l'université de Lille ont commencé fin novembre une instruction concernant plus de soixante articles d'un couple de chercheurs de l'Institut d'électronique, de microélectronique et de nanotechnologie à Lille.

Par David Larousserie

Publié le 19 décembre 2023 à 17h30

<figure><img src="image_109.png" /></figure>

Lecture 3 min.

<figure><img src="image_110.png" /></figure>

Cells, 2020

https://pubpeer.com/publications/7BD84681B312417E1CA665A83E9BB7

l'université de Lille. C'est la plus connue du couple, médaillée d'argent du CNRS en 2018, chevalier de la Légion d'honneur en juillet, détentrice d'une dizaine de brevets. Ces dix dernières années, elle a publié plus de 20 articles par an (pour un total de 488 articles depuis le début de sa carrière, avec une pointe à 42 en 2016.

<figure><img src="image_111.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_112.png" /></figure>
# Consequences: retractions++, but still not enough

<figure><img src="image_113.png" /></figure>

Retractions are skyrocketing as publishers work to remove sham articles from the literature.

## MORE THAN 10,000 RESEARCH PAPERS WERE RETRACTED IN 2023 — A NEW RECORD

The number of articles being retracted rose sharply this year. Integrity experts say that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

### A BUMPER YEAR FOR RETRACTIONS

Retraction notices in 2023 have passed 10,000, largely because of more than 8,000 retractions by Hindawi.

<figure><img src="image_114.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_115.png" /></figure>

February 23, 2022

<figure><img src="image_116.png" /></figure>

Ivan Oransky

Publisher retracts 350 papers at once

IOP
Institute of Physics

<figure><img src="image_117.png" /></figure>

Springer

<figure><img src="image_118.png" /></figure>

September 28, 2021

<figure><img src="image_119.png" /></figure>

Ivan Oransky

### Springer Nature slaps more than 400 papers with expressions of concern all at once

<figure><img src="image_120.png" /></figure>

Problematic

Flagged by 'Feet of Clay': probably unreliable

Hindawi's retracted papers might have been mostly sham articles, but they were still collectively cited more than 35,000 times, says Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse in France who backs problems in papers, including 'tortured phrases' — strange wording choices used to evade plagiarism detectors — and signs of undisclosed use of artificial intelligence.

https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-03974-8
# “Sunlight as disinfectant”

Feature *Nature's* 10

Guillaume Cabanac

Deception sleuth

This computer scientist
helped to uncover a new
kind of fabricated paper.

By **Diana Kwon**

Underground creepy crawly state. Bosom malignancy. Sun oriented force. These might sound like expressions from a work of fiction, but they are actually strange translations, pulled from the scholarly literature, of scientific terms – ant colony, breast cancer and solar energy, respectively. Guillaume Cabanac, a computer scientist at the University of Toulouse, France, spots such bizarre phrases in academic papers every day.

<figure><img src="image_121.png" /></figure>

Einstein Foundation
Individual Award Winner 2024

ELISABETH BIK

<figure><img src="image_122.png" /></figure>

Pollution of the scientific literature, O. Fraisier-Vannier, 13/01/26

Feature

NATURE'S 10

Ten people who helped shape science in 2024.

Anna Abalkina: Fraud buster

This Russian science sleuth spots fake papers and hijacked journals.

<figure><img src="image_123.png" /></figure>

nature

NEWS FEATURE | 08 December 2025

This science sleuth revealed a
retraction crisis at Indian
universities

Achal Agrawal is part of *Nature's* 10, a list of people who shaped science in 2025.

By **Miryam Naddaf**

<figure><img src="image_124.png" /></figure>

Einstein Foundation Institutional Award 2024

<figure><img src="image_125.png" /></figure>

PUBPEER

The online journal club
# ‘Stamp out paper mills’ – science sleuths on how to fight fake research

A group of scientists who are experts at spotting fraudulent research outline five essential steps to combat industrialized scientific misconduct.

By **Anna Abalkina** ✉️, **René Aquarius**, **Elisabeth Bik**, **David Bimler**, **Dorothy Bishop**, **Jennifer Byrne**, **Guillaume Cabanac**, **Adam Day**, **Cyril Labbé** & **Nick Wise**

<figure><img src="image_126.png" /></figure>

Research to understand mills

Educate stakeholders

Ensure best practice in publishing

Hold bad actors to account

Fund counteractive measures

## No cure in sight

These steps can hold back the tide. But as long as numbers of papers and citations remain the rewarded goal of scientific activity, there is an incentive for people to game the system. A structural shift in science is needed, if we are to wipe out commercialized fraud. Such a seismic shift will require conversation and collective actions between all stakeholders, to find new ways to assess and reward researchers.

# STM Integrity Hub

A New, Unified Approach to Safeguard Research Integrity

## STM Solutions releases MVP of new paper mill detection tool

News Announcement, Research Integrity

April 13, 2023

https://www.stm-assoc.org/papermillchecker/

Safeguarding research integrity can only be done through collaboration with all stakeholders in the scholarly ecosystem. STM Solutions worked with several research integrity specialists and organizations for this release, including PubPeer, Clear Skies, Elisabeth Bik and Guillaume Cabanac (pro bono). The STM Integrity Hub hopes to deepen and extend its collaboration with research integrity specialists and organizations going forward.
To check the quality of a journal
or a conference

**BEALL'S LIST**
OF POTENTIAL PREDATORY JOURNALS AND PUBLISHERS

**The Retraction Watch Hijacked**
**Journal Checker**

To be up-to-date on science integrity topics

<figure><img src="image_127.png" /></figure>

To check the quality of an article

<figure><img src="image_128.png" /></figure>

**Problematic Paper Screener**

Est. February 27th, 2021

<figure><img src="image_129.png" /></figure>

**PUBPEER**

The online journal club

bibCheck

<figure><img src="image_130.png" /></figure>

Plugin available

**Retraction Watch Database**

zotero

<figure><img src="image_131.png" /></figure>

Plugin
available
# Pollution of the scientific literature
## Examples and prevention

Ophélie Fraisier-Vannier

Based on the works of Guillaume Cabanac (https://hal.science/hal-04225515)
and Alexandre Clausse (https://hal.science/hal-05003402)
# Misconduct and the correction of science

## Conferences

* Barbour, B. (2021). *PubPeer: past, present and future*.

* Bik, E.M. (2021). *The Dark Side of Science: Misconduct in Biomedical Research*.

* Bouter, L. (2022). *Why research integrity matters*.

* Byrne, J.A. (2023). *Paper mills*.

* Cabanac, G. (2022). *Pollution de la littérature scientifique : détection participative d'expressions torturées révélatrices d'articles frauduleux*.

* Wise, N.H. (2022). *An Introduction to Publication Fraud*.

## Articles

* Barbour, B., & Stell, B. M. (2020). *PubPeer: Scientific assessment without metrics*. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), *Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research* (pp. 149–155). Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

* Cabanac, G. (2022). Decontamination of the scientific literature. *arXiv:2210.15912*

* Cabanac, G. (2021). This digital-hygiene routine will protect your scholarship [World View].
# Generation of text with LLMs: Academ-AI

## Academ-AI tracks undeclared uses of ChatGPT in scientific publications

Managed by Alex Glynn (Kornhauser Health Sciences Library, University of Louisville, USA)

<figure><img src="image_132.png" /></figure>

Journal articles

634

<figure><img src="image_133.png" /></figure>

Conference
papers

111

<figure><img src="image_134.png" /></figure>

Books/chapters

28

<table><thead><tr><td>Publisher</td><td>Journal articles</td><td>Conference articles</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>IEEE</td><td>8</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>Elsevier</td><td>31</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Springer</td><td>36</td><td>7</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_135.png" /></figure>

Al-Karawi et al., 2025

Brazilian Business Review

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, the methods for processing big data in Iraq were similar to those in many other countries.

<figure><img src="image_136.png" /></figure>

Dalai et al., 2025

Forensic Intelligence and Deep Learning Solutions in C...

However, as of my last knowledge update in January 2022, YOLO V7 is not an official release, so it's important to verify the most up-to-date version of YOLO for your project.

<figure><img src="image_137.png" /></figure>

Alasdi, 2025

AIP Conference Proceedings

Therefore, clustering may arise. The user's text is empty.
# [FoC] Authors caring for their scholarship

## Comparison of Selected Non-Coding RNAs and Gene Expression Profiles between Common Osteosarcoma Cell Lines

Cancers (2022) - 4 Comments

pubmed: 36139691 doi: 10.3390/cancers14184533 issn: 2072-6694

1 retracted + 2 questioned

<figure><img src="image_138.png" /></figure>

### #2 Hypsilurus godeffroyi commented February 2023

Thank you for sending us this information. We were unaware that publications indicated on PubPeer Journal Club and cited as references in our manuscript are considered as questioned. Regarding references:

1. [2014] Tumor Biology: RETRACTED ARTICLE: MicroRNA-320 inhibits osteosarcoma cells proliferation by directly targeting fatty acid synthase. Chi Cheng • Zhen-Qiang Chen • Xue-Tao Shi We did not know that the Publisher and Editor of Tumor Biol retracted this paper and others following the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We have found this information in the PubPeer report. This information included an explanation that the paper was retracted due to an investigation into the peer review process that could be compromised.

2. [2020] Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine: Long non-coding RNA MEG3 promotes autophagy and apoptosis of nasopharyngeal carcinoma cells via PTEN up-regulation by binding to microRNA-21. Liqiang Lin • Xiaoli Liu • Baotao Lv Similarly, we have learned about the potential manipulation of Western blots presented in this paper from PubPeer. However, we noticed that the article is not retracted by the Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, which has strict rules regarding blots/gels publishing. The authors publishing in JCMM must provide original unprocessed images for every result presented in the paper.

3. [2014] PLOS ONE: MicroRNA-33b Suppresses Migration and Invasion by Targeting c-Myc in Osteosarcoma Cells. Ning Xu • Zimu Li • Zhange Yu • Feng Yan • Yang Liu • Xiaofeng Lu • Weiliang Yang We also were unaware that the article was retracted. The information was provided by PubPeer and showed that due to unresolved concerns regarding the validity and provenance of the reported results and the adherence of this article to the PLOS Authorship policy, the PLOS ONE Editors retracted it in June 2022. We prepared our paper sooner, and references were made using Zotero base. Thus, we did not find this information earlier. We admit that we used one reference to the retracted article. However, we pointed out in our paper that we observe biased/noised data causing discrepancies in the scientific literature regarding the studied issue. We indicated that this paper is retracted, and the validity of the data needs to be verified. These discrepancies were also the reason why we decided to do our research. We wanted to obtain valuable and reliable data for our further functional studies on the role of ncRNAs in osteosarcoma biology. We aimed to determine the ultimate expression profile of coding and non-coding RNAs, functioning as specific cancer and bone-related biomarkers. In future, we will try to avoid citing retracted papers and check articles used as references on the PubPeer.

<figure><img src="image_139.png" /></figure>
# L'opportunité d'une discussion scientifique plus ouverte ?

Créé en 2017 comme département du Hcéres, l'Office Français de l'Intégrité Scientifique (OFIS) assure une mission nationale de promotion et de coordination des politiques en faveur de l'intégrité scientifique. Ses actions s'organisent selon trois axes : observatoire, ressources, réflexion et prospective. L'OFIS est dirigé par Stéphanie Ruphy. Le Conseil Français de l'Intégrité Scientifique (CoFIS), présidé par Olivier Le Gall, oriente et supervise ses travaux.

Fin avril dernier, les Professeurs Didier Raoult et Eric Chabrière annonçaient avoir porté plainte pour harcèlement, tentative de chantage et d'extorsion contre Elisabeth Bik, microbiologiste aujourd'hui spécialisée dans le commentaire critique d'articles scientifiques déjà publiés, et pour complicité contre Boris Barbour, neurobiologiste au CNRS et administrateur du site PubPeer qui accueille de tels commentaires, souvent anonymes. Les commentaires peuvent renvoyer à des questions d'éthique (non-respect des réglementations en vigueur concernant la protection des personnes), de déontologie (absence de déclaration de conflits d'intérêt) ou encore d'intégrité scientifique (manipulation d'images). Il n'entre pas dans les prérogatives de l'OFIS de se prononcer sur des cas individuels, puisque le traitement d'allégations particulières de manquements à l'intégrité scientifique relève au premier chef de la responsabilité des opérateurs de recherche concernés. En revanche, cette affaire rend visible de nouveaux enjeux majeurs en matière de bonnes pratiques scientifiques.

[...]

Sur un plan plus institutionnel se pose la question de la pleine intégration à l'écosystème de la recherche des fonctions de vigilance et de correction post-publication assurées aujourd'hui par ces blogs et plateformes spécialisés. Dès lors que le bénéfice de ces fonctions est établi pour la qualité et la fiabilité des productions scientifiques, pourquoi ne pas envisager leur reconnaissance voire leur prise en charge par les institutions scientifiques ? Cela permettrait au monde académique de s'approprier pleinement ces nouvelles modalités de discussion critique et d'en définir collectivement les bonnes pratiques comme il l'a fait pour les autres processus déjà existants d'auto-correction. Il pourrait par exemple considérer les activités de commentaires post-publication comme relevant des activités ordinaires du chercheur, au même titre que les activités traditionnelles d'évaluation par les pairs. Ou encore, soutenir les interventions pertinentes d'acteurs qui ne sont pas ou plus des chercheurs en exercice, reconnaissant ainsi leur légitimité et leur utilité.