Academia’s papermill problem: How the scholarly publishing industry is fighting back

Papermills have continued to be a significant crisis in the world of scholarly publishing. With major journals falling prey to these unethical practices, this topic of conversation has extended beyond academia and into the public eye. One of the most notable cases involves the journal Bioengineered, which identified a suspicious trend in submissions that raised alarms about potential papermill activity. Similarly, renowned publishers such as the Royal Society of Chemistry and Springer Nature have also faced an influx of fraudulent articles across various research areas. The infiltration of papermills into even the most esteemed journals reveals a troubling vulnerability within the system, emphasizing the urgent need for publishers to fortify their defenses against threats from papermills. 

While prompt retractions of fraudulent papers are crucial in maintaining the integrity of databases and archives, the research ecosystem requires a comprehensive strategy to confront this challenge head on. Understanding the serious repercussions for the credibility of published research, scholarly publishers are stepping up to implement effective measures to combat this widespread problem. 

1. Relying on technology 

Papermills are increasingly leveraging technological advancements, particularly Al, to refine their fraudulent practices. This evolution makes it even more challenging to identify deceptive submissions. However, technology also offers a powerful solution; Al-driven tools can significantly assist editors and reviewers in detecting fraudulent manuscripts that might otherwise go unnoticed. While much of the conversation surrounding Al developments has centered on potential threats to research integrity, its application in identifying bogus papers could actually help restore confidence in published science. To support journal editorial teams and reviewers in spotting suspicious submissions, scholarly publishers are rolling out dedicated tools aimed at upholding research integrity. Moreover, the incorporation of internal author-flagging systems within editorial platforms will enhance the identification of dubious authors and help prevent the acceptance of fraudulent papers. 

For instance, the STM Integrity Hub has joined forces with Paperpal Preflight for Editorial Desk, integrating Paperpal’s AI-driven integrity checks into its solutions. This collaboration adds to the tech-forward approach in scholarly publishing, setting new standards for trust and reliability. 

Also read: Harnessing AI efficiencies and human expertise for enhancing editorial and peer review processes: An interview with Shilpi Mehra 

2. Forging industry collaborations 

The commitment of the scholarly publishing industry to confront the issue of papermills and uphold research integrity is clearly reflected in the growing number of initiatives, tools, and practices adopted by the industry. However, it is important to recognize that if these efforts remain isolated and uncoordinated, their overall effectiveness may be significantly undermined. Addressing this industry-wide challenge requires collaboration among all stakeholders. In light of this, publishers and organizations are increasingly coming together to share valuable insights, resources, and strategies, which highlights the crucial role of collective action in effectively tackling this critical and widespread issue.  

United2Act is a prime example of such a collaborative effort. It is an alliance of global stakeholders dedicated to tackling the shared challenge posed by papermills in scholarly publishing. Supported by COPE and STM, it concentrates on five main areas— promoting education and awareness, enhancing post-publication corrections, researching papermills, developing trust markers, and fostering collaboration through joint projects. 

3. Implementing training and awareness 

Given the enormity of the papermill issue, there is an urgent need for awareness training. As papermills employ increasingly sophisticated tactics to present fake papers as authentic, comprehensive training can help journal editors and reviewers to sharpen their skills in recognizing red flags, such as unusual authorship patterns, duplicate submissions, manipulated images, and inconsistent data. Training can also empower journals to collectively pool in their efforts and expertise to detect and combat these fraudulent activities. Furthermore, while advanced technology and tools can enhance detection capabilities, their effectiveness is greatly amplified when paired with well-prepared editorial teams capable of leveraging these resources to make informed decisions. 

The Royal Society of Chemistry exemplifies this approach as it actively ramps up efforts to detect and prevent the publication of fraudulent papers, with an emphasis on raising awareness among staff and associate editors. 

Conclusion 

In the fight against the threat of papermills, it is essential for scholarly publishers to adopt future-proofing strategies. This includes investing in cutting-edge technologies and fostering process innovation. Promoting open data policies can help boost transparency and traceability in research outputs and trust markers like ORCIDs can prove invaluable in identifying and preventing the publication of papermill outputs. 

The consequences of papermill activities going unchecked are far-reaching—not only does this undermine the credibility of published research, but it also distorts the integrity of scientific discovery itself and erodes public trust in scholarly work. Through increased awareness, the adoption of new tools and practices, and collaborative efforts, the academic publishing industry can proactively address the challenges posed by papermills, safeguarding the integrity of scholarly publishing.