Researchers are coping with a disturbing trend that threatens the inspiration of scientific progress: scientific fraud has grow to be an industry. And it’s growing faster than legitimate peer reviewed science journals can sustain with.
This isn’t about individual bad actors anymore. We’re witnessing the emergence of an organised, systematic approach to scientific fraud. This includes paper mills churning out formulaic research articles, brokerages guaranteeing publication for a fee and predatory journals that bypass quality assurance entirely.
These organisations disguise themselves behind respectable sounding labels reminiscent of “editing services” or “academic consultants”. In reality, their business model is determined by corrupting the scientific process.
Paper mills operate like content farms, flooding journals with submissions to overwhelm peer review systems. They practice journal targeting, sending multiple papers to 1 publication, and journal hopping, submitting the identical paper to multiple outlets concurrently. It’s a numbers game. If even a fraction slip through, the fraudulent service profits.
Is this only a case of scientists being lazy? The answer is more complex and troubling. Today’s researchers face constraints that make these fraudulent services increasingly tempting. The pressure to repeatedly produce latest research or risk getting your funding cut, called the “publish or perish” culture, is a longstanding problem.
As well, governments world wide are facing financial struggles and need to trim costs, leading to less funding for research. Less funding means increased competition.
This creates a catch-22 situation for researchers who need publications to win funding but need funding to conduct publishable research. Environmental aspects compound the difficulty. Globalisation means individual researchers are lost in an ocean of competing voices, making the temptation to game the system even stronger.
In this environment, the promise of guaranteed publication can seem to be a lifeline reasonably than a Faustian bargain.
AI: Acceleration at what cost?
The rise of generative AI has supercharged this fraud industry. Researchers are witnessing an explosion in research articles that appear to take advantage of AI software to supply papers at an unprecedented speed. These papers mine public data sets that supply surface level evidence. These unexpectedly generated papers bear hallmarks of a paper mill production process, including evidence fabrication, data manipulation, ethics misconduct and outright plagiarism.
Where a peer reviewer might once have received ten submissions for a conference or journal in a 12 months, they’re now drowning in 30 or 40 submissions with a shorter time-frame (six months or less), with legitimate research buried within the avalanche.
AI has was a cat and mouse game for researchers and reviewers.
Blue Andy/Shutterstock
Overwhelmed reviewers, in turn, are tempted to make use of AI tools to summarise papers, discover gaps within the evidence and even write review responses. This is creating an arms race. Some researchers have began embedding hidden text of their submissions, reminiscent of white text on white backgrounds or microscopic fonts, containing instructions to override AI prompts and provides the paper positive reviews.
The peer review system, academia’s safeguard against fraud, faces its own problems. Although it’s meant to make sure quality, it’s a slow process where latest ideas need careful examination and testing. History reminds us that peer review is crucial but imperfect. Albert Einstein hated it.
Because the method is slow, many researchers share their findings first on pre-publication platforms, where work may be shared immediately. By the time the research reaches a legitimate science conference or journal, non peer review publications are already being distributed to the world. Waiting for the peer review process means a researcher risks missing getting credit for his or her discovery.
The pressure to be first hasn’t modified since Isaac Newton let his calculus discovery languish unpublished while Gottfried Leibniz claimed the kudos. What has modified is the size and systematisation of shortcuts.
An increase in batch retractions (ten or more papers concurrently withdrawn) signals that we’re not coping with isolated incidents but with an industrial-scale problem. In the Nineteen Nineties there have been almost no batch retractions. In 2020 there have been around 3,000 and over 6,000 in 2023.
In comparison, in 2023 there have been 2,000 single paper retractions. This signifies that batch retractions of greater than ten papers were thrice higher than single paper retractions.
A path forward
If this were simply about hunting down unethical scientists, the systems we have already got might suffice. But we’re facing a challenge to the network of checks and balances that makes science work. When fraudulent publications grow faster than legitimate science and when AI-generated content overwhelms human review capability, we’d like higher solutions.
The scientific community must reckon with how its own structures; the publication metrics, funding mechanisms and profession incentives, have created vulnerabilities that unethical systems can exploit.
Until we address these systemic issues, the fraud industry will thrive, undermining the enterprise that has made our world safer, cleaner and more accessible. The query isn’t whether we will afford to repair this technique—it’s whether we will afford to not.
