Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool

Parker, Lisa; Boughton, Stephanie; Lawrence, Rosa; Bero, Lisa

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006

Cited by 29 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Irreproducible research represents a major problem that hinders research translation and generates damaging levels of research waste ( 1–4 ). There are many causes of irreproducible research results ( 1–6 ), but relatively few studies have focussed upon the contributions of research fraud ( 7 , 8 ). This review will describe problems affecting the human gene research literature through possible contributions from contract-cheating organisations known as research paper mills, which provide undeclared services to support research manuscripts and publications ( 8–12 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The review will provide a brief introduction to human gene research and then introduce research paper mills. The concept that scientific articles can be bought and sold ( 8–12 ) contradicts everything that most researchers wish to believe about scientific publishing, and some readers may doubt that paper mills exist. We will therefore summarise what is known or predicted of paper mill operations and their likely drivers and enablers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The term ‘paper mill’ was first employed in the 1970s ( 29 , 30 ) to describe commercial organizations that sell essays and theses to high school, undergraduate and/or postgraduate students. These organizations are now referred to as ‘essay mills’ ( 31 ), and ‘paper mill’ is applied to commercial entities that (also) sell undeclared services in relation to research manuscripts and publications ( 8–12 , 32 , 33 ). While recognizing that very little empirical research has been published about paper mills, we will summarize the literature that describes or predicts elements of paper mill operations and their products and services.…”

Section: Introduction To Research Paper Millsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Paper mills are alleged to operate in many countries and to offer a variety of questionable and/or illegal services to a range of clients across different research disciplines ( 8–10 , 32 , 33 ). Clients of paper mills are likely to be academics, research students and clinicians who do not have the time, facilities and/or training to conduct the genuine research that is required of them ( 10 , 11 , 32 , 34 , 35 ).…”

Section: Introduction To Research Paper Millsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction To Research Paper Millsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction To Research Paper Millsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

“…One of us (L.A.B.) has grappled with a similar issue regarding the identification of problematic studies in systematic reviews [3]. There, she and her coauthors found that intention does not really matter when the objective is to identify untrustworthy studies, but that it has legal implications.…”

Section: Response To Recommendations To Improve the Toolkitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1]

Soskolne

Bero

Kramer³

et al. 2022

Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In August 2021, we published in Environmental Health a Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods with the goal of providing an organizational framework for transparently evaluating epidemiological studies, a body of evidence, and resultant conclusions. Tsuda et al., the first group to utilize the Toolkit in a systematic fashion, have offered suggestions for its modification. Main body Among the suggested modifications made by Tsuda et al., we agree that rearrangement of Part A of the Toolkit to reflect the sequence of the epidemiological study process would facilitate its usefulness. Expansion or adaptation of the Toolkit to other disciplines would be valuable but would require the input of discipline-specific expertise. We caution against using the sections of the Toolkit to produce a tally or cumulative score, because none of the items are weighted as to importance or impact. Rather, we suggest a visual representation of how a study meets the Toolkit items, such as the heat maps used to present risk of bias criteria for studies included in Cochrane reviews. We suggest that the Toolkit be incorporated in the sub-specialty known as “forensic epidemiology,” as well as in graduate training curricula, continuing education programs, and conferences, with the recognition that it is an extension of widely accepted ethics guidelines for epidemiological research. Conclusion We welcome feedback from the research community about ways to strengthen the Toolkit as it is applied to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, contributing to its value as a living tool/instrument. The application of the Toolkit by Tsuda et al. exemplifies the usefulness of this framework for transparently evaluating, in a systematic way, epidemiological research, conclusions relating to causation, and policy decisions. Postscript We note that our Toolkit has, most recently, inspired authors with discipline-specific expertise in the field of Conservation Biology to adapt it for use in the Biological Sciences.

show abstract

The power of weak signals: how systematic reviews direct researchers away from potentially biased primary studies

Salandra

Criscuolo

Salter

2022

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

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

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

Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1]

The power of weak signals: how systematic reviews direct researchers away from potentially biased primary studies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About