A new chapter for a better <i>Bioscience Reports</i>

Cooper, C.D.O.; Han, Weiping

doi:10.1042/bsr20211016

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The ability to alter the published record relies upon the engagement and co-operation of journals and publishers ( 11 ). Over the past year, growing numbers of journals have begun to recognise the issue of manuscripts and publications from paper mills ( 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 ), including articles that analyse genes and drug treatments in human cell lines ( 77 , 79 ). Although the described efforts to screen incoming manuscripts are welcome and should be extended to all journals that publish gene research, screening incoming manuscripts must be coupled with addressing problematic articles that are already embedded in the literature ( 77 , 80 , 81 , 82 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nucleotide sequence reagents underpin molecular techniques that have been applied across hundreds of thousands of publications. We have previously reported wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents in human research publications and described a semi-automated screening tool Seek & Blastn to fact-check their claimed status. We applied Seek & Blastn to screen >11,700 publications across five literature corpora, including all original publications in Gene from 2007 to 2018 and all original open-access publications in Oncology Reports from 2014 to 2018. After manually checking Seek & Blastn outputs for >3,400 human research articles, we identified 712 articles across 78 journals that described at least one wrongly identified nucleotide sequence. Verifying the claimed identities of >13,700 sequences highlighted 1,535 wrongly identified sequences, most of which were claimed targeting reagents for the analysis of 365 human protein-coding genes and 120 non-coding RNAs. The 712 problematic articles have received >17,000 citations, including citations by human clinical trials. Given our estimate that approximately one-quarter of problematic articles may misinform the future development of human therapies, urgent measures are required to address unreliable gene research articles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At least 11 journals across 8 publishers have now recognized the threat of paper mills through journal editorials ( 36 , 62–73 ). Most of these journals publish human gene research and some have specifically recognized paper mill articles that target human genes ( 36 , 65 , 69 , 73 ). These editorials have described features of suspected paper mill articles, either through editors’ own experiences and/or by summarizing features described elsewhere (Table 2 ).…”

Section: Evidence That Paper Mills Contribute To the Human Gene Resea...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These editorials have described features of suspected paper mill articles, either through editors’ own experiences and/or by summarizing features described elsewhere (Table 2 ). Repeatedly described features include manuscripts that do not fit stated journal criteria or special issue scope ( 63 , 66 ), conserved structures suggesting the use of manuscript templates ( 66 , 70 , 71 ), manipulated or duplicated images and figures ( 36 , 64–67 , 69 , 71 ), and failure to provide convincing raw data upon request ( 36 , 62 ) (Table 2 ). Some editorials also described decisions to retract multiple papers due to paper mill involvement ( 36 , 66 , 68 , 73 ).…”

Section: Evidence That Paper Mills Contribute To the Human Gene Resea...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Retrospective literature analyses ( 38 , 39 , 54 , 56 ), combined with qualitative research conducted with authors ( 35 ) and investigations led by publishers or journal editors ( 36 , 65 , 69 , 73 ), commonly suggest that human gene research is being targeted by paper mills. While recognising the limited empirical research conducted to date, we will consider the factors that could render human gene research vulnerable to paper mills, to predict the potential scale of this problem.…”

Section: Why Human Gene Research Could Be Particularly Vulnerable To ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills

Byrne

Park

Richardson

et al. 2022

Nucleic Acids Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human gene research generates new biology insights with translational potential, yet few studies have considered the health of the human gene literature. The accessibility of human genes for targeted research, combined with unreasonable publication pressures and recent developments in scholarly publishing, may have created a market for low-quality or fraudulent human gene research articles, including articles produced by contract cheating organizations known as paper mills. This review summarises the evidence that paper mills contribute to the human gene research literature at scale and outlines why targeted gene research may be particularly vulnerable to systematic research fraud. To raise awareness of targeted gene research from paper mills, we highlight features of problematic manuscripts and publications that can be detected by gene researchers and/or journal staff. As improved awareness and detection could drive the further evolution of paper mill-supported publications, we also propose changes to academic publishing to more effectively deter and correct problematic publications at scale. In summary, the threat of paper mill-supported gene research highlights the need for all researchers to approach the literature with a more critical mindset, and demand publications that are underpinned by plausible research justifications, rigorous experiments and fully transparent reporting.

show abstract

“…The mass retraction of human gene research papers in response to manipulated peer review [22] was linked with some authors disclosing the use of paper mill services [23]. More recently, numerous biomedical and chemistry journals have published editorials recognizing manuscript submissions from paper mills [24–38], where some editorials have recognized papers that examined human genes [28, 29, 31, 38]. Some journals have undertaken retractions of papers that are suspected to have originated from paper mills [28-30, 35, 36].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

Pathmendra

Park

Enguita

et al. 2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human gene research studies that describe wrongly identified nucleotide sequence reagents have been mostly identified in journals of low to moderate impact factor, where unreliable findings could be considered to have limited influence on future research. This study examined whether papers describing wrongly identified nucleotide sequences are also published in high impact factor cancer research journals. We manually verified nucleotide sequence identities in original Molecular Cancer articles published in 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020, including nucleotide sequence reagents that were claimed to target circRNAs. Using keywords identified in problematic 2018 and 2020 Molecular Cancer papers, we also verified nucleotide sequence identities in 2020 Oncogene papers that studied miRNA(s) and/or circRNA(s). Overall, 3.8% (253/6,647) and 4.3% (50/1,165) nucleotide sequences that were verified in Molecular Cancer and Oncogene papers, respectively, were found to be wrongly identified. These wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were distributed across 18% (92/500) original Molecular Cancer papers, including 38% Molecular Cancer papers from 2020, and 40% (21/52) selected Oncogene papers from 2020. Original papers with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences were therefore unexpectedly frequent in two high impact factor cancer research journals, highlighting the risks of employing journal impact factors or citations as proxies for research quality.

show abstract

A new chapter for a better Bioscience Reports

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

Identification of human gene research articles with wrongly identified nucleotide sequences

Protection of the human gene research literature from contract cheating organizations known as research paper mills

Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About