The presence of false articles in scientific publication has become an important issue, threatening the credibility of the academic registry.

How big is the problem of false paper? Understand the scope of fraud in scientific publication

Dr.Nanci | Research design and mixed research methods.

January 21, 2025

Dr.Nanci | Research design and mixed research methods.

January 19, 2025

INTRODUCTION: A growing concern

The presence of false articles in scientific publication has become an important issue, threatening the credibility of the academic registry. However, estimating the real prevalence of false documents is a challenge due to methodological difficulties, variable and different disciplinary standards rates [1]. This article explores current estimates, the factors that influence these figures and implications for the scientific community.

Estimation of the False Documents Scale: Variable proportions between studies

Specific estimates of the magazine

Two magazines that observe presentations of paper mill estimated false presentations in 5%–10% and 5%respectively (Heck et al., 2021; Seifert, 2021a).

However, these estimates are not representative since paper factories are directed to specific magazines more frequently (COPE and STM, 2022) [2].

Disciplinary variations

The proportion of false presentations varies widely between disciplines and magazines, with rates reported as high as 46% In some cases (COPE and STM, 2022) [3].

Global estimates of published false articles

A 2019 study found that 0.01% Of all the scientific articles published that year, they retracted for being false (Candal-Pedreira et al., 2022).

In 2023, 10,000 publications They were retracted worldwide, many due to indications of being false documents. Retraction rates overcome 0.2% In 2023, marking a significant increase in the last two decades (Van Noordden, 2023a). [4]

Textual similarities in published articles

An unpublished 2022 study identified strong textual similarities with known false documents in 1.5%–2% of all publications. While this poses suspicions, a more detailed exam is required to confirm these documents as false (Van Noordden, 2023b) [5].

Figure 1: Understand the scope of fraud in scientific publication

Problematic images such as false papers indicators

Image manipulation studies

A projection of 20,000 articles Posted between 1995 and 2014 found problematic images in 3.8% of cases (Bik et al., 2016) [1].

A study of 1,300 open access items of Pubmed Central in January 2014 reported problematic images in 6% of cases (Bucci, 2018).

Implications of problematic images

Many of these problematic images were intentionally manufactured, suggesting that the corresponding documents can be false [6].

Start your clinical research trip with us!

Overestimated figures: Limitations in Methodology

Questionable criteria for false papers

A study estimated that 28.8% Of the biomedical documents published in 2020 they were potentially false, based on criteria such as the use of non -institutional email addresses (Sabel et al., 2023) [7]. However, this methodology has been criticized as unreliable (Wittau and Seifert, 2023) [1].

A revised version of the study reduced estimation to 11% But he retained the questionable methodology, indicating that these figures are overestimal (Sabel et al., 2023) [7].

Most conservative findings

A study that examines the rejected and retired documents later published in another part found false documents verified in less than 1% of cases (Wittau et al., 2023) [8].

Summary of the key findings

Receptive table

Body {Font-Family: Arial, Sans-Serif; } Table {Width: 100%; Edge collapse: collapse; } Thead {in the background: #F4F4F4; } th, td {filling: 12px; text-align: left; Edge: 1px Solid #ddd; } / * Make the table responsible * / @media (max-width: 768px) {table, thead, tbody, th, td, tr {display: block; } Thead Tr {Display: None; } tr {margin-bottom: 10px; Border-Bottom: 2px solid #ddd; } td {display: flex; Justify-Content: Space-Between; Alignment of items: center; Fill: 10px 5px; } Td: Before {content: Atr (Data-Label); Font-Weight: Bold; Width: 120px; text-align: left; Screen: block online; }}

Reason	Description
APPOINTED WORK	When a retracting element is used in appointments or references, which leads to the propagation of unreliable information.
Data error, image, analysis, methods, results or text	Errors in data collection, image preparation, analysis, methodologies, interpretation of results or textual content.
Author’s ethical violations	Author actions that contravene accepted ethical standards in research or publication.
FALSIFICATION/MANUFACTURE OF DATA, IMAGE OR RESULTS	Intentional manipulation of data, images or results for misrepresenting findings.
Informed/patient consent: None/retired	Do not obtain or honor the consent of the participants, or participants terminate their approval after learning more about risks or benefits.
Lack of IRB/IACUC approval	Lack of approval of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Institutional Committee for Animal Care and Use (IACUC).
Legal reasons/legal threats	Actions or decisions influenced by the threat of ongoing legal disputes or disputes.
Bad behavior: research/official finding	The proven misconduct identified through an official investigation by an institution of government, corporation or government agency.
Item plagiarism, data, image or text	The unauthorized use of the work of another, including articles, data, images or text, without an appropriate appointment or attribution.
Non -reproducible results	The inability to replicate the findings using the same methods and materials, throwing doubts about the validity of the study.
Autoplagiarism	Republicating the same work or sections of the same authors without the appropriate recognition or appointment.
Data, image or unreliable results	Precision or questionable validity of data, images or results, undermining confidence in findings.

Challenges in estimating false documents

Detection bias: Not all false documents are identified or retracted, which leads to the underestimation [1].
Variability in definitions: The different criteria to identify false documents create inconsistencies.
Methodological problems: Studies that use unreliable methodologies can overestimate the prevalence of false documents [7].

Contact Pubrica today to know how our expert services can help you navigate the complexities of academic publication and guarantee the reliability of your research.

We offer the experience, knowledge and comprehensive support of your clinical research and publication needs.

The role of consciousness and technology

Growing awareness: Greater attention to the problem has contributed to more frequent retractions.

Technological tools: Advances in plagiarism detection and image analysis can help identify false documents more effectively [1].

How Pubrica helps fight the problem of false paper

In PublishingWe are committed to maintaining the integrity of the scientific publication. This is how we help researchers and institutions:

PLAGE AND IMAGE ANALYSIS

Advanced tools to detect textual and image handling in manuscripts.

Ethical publication support

Orientation on best practices to guarantee the integrity of research and avoid traps that lead to retractions.

PREVITION TO PRESENTATION

Complete reviews of manuscripts to identify possible problems before presentation.

Training and education

Workshops and resources to raise awareness about false documents and promote ethical research practices.

Conclusion

Estimation of the prevalence of false documents in the scientific publication is a challenge, with figures ranging from less than 1% to exaggerated claims of almost 30%. While the increase in retraction rates and problematic image studies highlight the problem, methodological inconsistencies make definitive estimates evasion. By promoting transparency, ethical practices and the use of advanced detection tools, the scientific community can work to mitigate this growing problem.

The publication How big is the problem of false paper? Understanding the scope of fraud in scientific publication first appeared at the Academy.

#big #problem #false #paper #Understand #scope #fraud #scientific #publication