Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology

Abalkina, Anna; Bishop, Dorothy V. M.

doi:10.31234/osf.io/2yf8z

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, authorship allocation based on financial incentives extends far beyond cases where individuals directly pay to be listed as authors (Abalkina, 2023;Abalkina & Bishop, 2023). In some contexts, researchers may be incentivized to include influential figures or funders as authors to secure future funding or expand their professional network.…”

Section: Research Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

Maddi,

Silva

2024

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of authorship attributions in scientific publications, focusing on the fairness and precision of individual contributions within academic works. Design/methodology/approach The study analyzes 81,823 publications from the journal PLOS ONE, covering the period from January 2018 to June 2023. It examines the authorship attributions within these publications to try and determine the prevalence of inappropriate authorship. It also investigates the demographic and professional profiles of affected authors, exploring trends and potential factors contributing to inaccuracies in authorship. Findings Surprisingly, 9.14% of articles feature at least one author with inappropriate authorship, affecting over 14,000 individuals (2.56% of the sample). Inappropriate authorship is more concentrated in Asia, Africa, and specific European countries like Italy. Established researchers with significant publication records and those affiliated with companies or nonprofits show higher instances of potential monetary authorship. Research limitations Our findings are based on contributions as declared by the authors, which implies a degree of trust in their transparency. However, this reliance on self-reporting may introduce biases or inaccuracies into the dataset. Further research could employ additional verification methods to enhance the reliability of the findings. Practical implications These findings have significant implications for journal publishers, highlighting the necessity for robust control mechanisms to ensure the integrity of authorship attributions. Moreover, researchers must exercise discernment in determining when to acknowledge a contributor and when to include them in the author list. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the credibility and fairness of academic publications. Originality/value This study contributes to an understanding of critical issues within academic authorship, shedding light on the prevalence and impact of inappropriate authorship attributions. By calling for a nuanced approach to ensure accurate credit is given where it is due, the study underscores the importance of upholding ethical standards in scholarly publishing.

show abstract

Section: Research Papersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

Maddi,

Silva

2024

Journal of Data and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The payment is divided among the journal, the author, and us. (International Publisher website as quoted in Abalkina, 2021) The place in author order, typically following the practice in medicine -also affects the price of slots. Hvistendahl (2013) gives the example of an article newly accepted by Elsevier's International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology.…”

Section: Medical Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine

Macdonald

2022

Social Science Information

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of quantitative performance indicators to measure quality in academic publishing has undercut peer review’s qualitative assessment of articles submitted to journals. The two might have co-existed quite amicably were the most common indicator, citation, on which the journal impact factor is based, not been so susceptible to gaming. Gaming of citations is ubiquitous in academic publishing and referees are powerless to prevent it. The article gives some indication of how the citation game is played. It then moves on from academic publishing in general to look at academic publishing in medicine, a discipline in which authorship is also gamed. Many authors in medicine have made no meaningful contribution to the article that bears their names, and those who have contributed most are often not named as authors. Author slots are openly bought and sold. The problem is magnified by the academic publishing industry and by academic institutions, pleased to pretend that peer review is safeguarding scholarship. In complete contrast, the editors of medicine’s leading journals are scathing about just how ineffectual is peer review in medicine. Other disciplines should take note lest they fall into the mire in which medicine is sinking.

show abstract

“…One source of evidence for paper mill operation comes from consideration of email addresses of authors: where a single email domain predominates, and/or does not match their academic affiliation, this raises suspicions (Abalkina & Bishop, 2022;Smut Clyde, 2022). In a recent blogpost, Wise (2022) focused on the Hindawi journal Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, noting an astounding growth in the number of published articles, from 269 papers in 2019 to 2,429 for 2022 (up to October).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Red flags for paper mills need to go beyond the level of individual articles: a case study of Hindawi special issues

Bishop

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Organisations known as paper mills charge authors to place fraudulent papers in the academic literature. Publishers have been slow to tackle the problem, but are now starting to devise methods for identifying paper mill products. However, little attention has been paid to the topic of complicit editors, who can take over special issues of journals and then publish many fraudulent articles. To date, activities of such editors have been documented by a handful of sleuths on social media and on the website PubPeer. This paper reports a descriptive study that documents more systematically the presence of “red flags” indicative of paper mill activity in special issues from the Wiley-Hindawi Open Access publishing partnership. Methods: A spreadsheet was created from the Hindawi website with records for all published articles during 2022. Initial analysis focused on initial Editor Response Time (RT) in ten journals that had been identified by sleuths as having high rates of problematic papers. In a second step, the whole dataset was scrutinized to identify editors who had handled at least 10 articles. These were divided into those who had had at least one PubPeer comment flagging dubious content or citations, and those with no PubPeer comments.Results: A cutoff of 22 days was identified as corresponding to the 2nd percentile of Editor RT for regular articles not in special issues. Plots show that in the 10 selected journals, some special issues have 50% or more of Editor RTs below this cutoff, raising questions as to whether an appropriate peer review process had taken place. Editors with articles flagged on PubPeer processed significantly more articles and had significantly shorter Editor RT than other editors. They often acted as editors in multiple issues. Other potential red flags, i.e., proportions of papers accepted without revision, or lack of diversity of author emails did not distinguish the two subgroups of editors. Discussion: Relatively simple indicators, of number of articles processed and speed of editorial processing, can be used as red flags that suggest an editor should be investigated to ensure they are not part of a paper mill. Conclusion: To tackle paper mills, it is crucial to move from a focus on individual articles to identify and root out individuals who have used positions as guest editors of special issues to flood the literature with fraudulent material. It is hoped that this analysis makes a start in suggesting approaches that can be used to this end.

show abstract

Paper mills: a novel form of publishing malpractice affecting psychology

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

Beyond authorship: Analyzing contributions in PLOS ONE and the challenges of appropriate attribution

The gaming of citation and authorship in academic journals: a warning from medicine

Red flags for paper mills need to go beyond the level of individual articles: a case study of Hindawi special issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About