Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills

Rachel Hackett · Steven L. Kelly

22 citations0/0 files storedBiology Open

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Publishing and Scholarly Communication Academic Publishing and Open Access Academic integrity and plagiarism

Abstract

In 2013, a journalist working for the journal Science launched a ‘sting’ operation to highlight perceived flaws in the peer-review processes operated by Open Access journals ([Bohannon, 2013][1]). Biology Open (BiO) was one of the Open Access journals tested – the submitted ‘nonsense’

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

2013Who's Afraid of Peer Review?2016The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications 2020Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21 st century—how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?

Cited by

2021Fake data, paper mills, and their authors: The International Journal of Cancer reacts to this threat to scientific integrity 2024How to fight fake papers: a review on important information sources and steps towards solution of the problem 2020Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers 2024Verification of nucleotide sequence reagent identities in original publications in high impact factor cancer research journals 2021The 1-h fraud detection challenge 2022Tamquam alter idem: formal similarities in a subset of reports on anti-inflammatory compounds in the years 2008–2019

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.