Articlehybrid2022

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

Cristina Candal‐Pedreira · Joseph S. Ross · Alberto Ruano‐Raviña · David Steven Egilman · Esteve Fernández · Mónica Pérez‐Ríos

156 citations0/0 files storedBMJ

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

Academic integrity and plagiarism scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals. PARTICIPANTS: All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received. RESULTS: 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received. CONCLUSIONS: Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 156 citations exist upstream.

References

2012Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications 2015Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals 2017Publish or impoverish 2015Misconduct Policies, Academic Culture and Career Stage, Not Gender or Pressures to Publish, Affect Scientific Integrity 2021The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

Cited by

2024Using large language models to generate silicon samples in consumer and marketing research: Challenges, opportunities, and guidelines 2023Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: Evidence from a Russia‐based paper mill 2024The landscape of biomedical research 2024Paper mill challenges: past, present, and future 2025Journal of Global Health’s Guidelines for Reporting Analyses of Big Data Repositories Open to the Public (GRABDROP): preventing ‘paper mills’, duplicate publications, misuse of statistical inference, and inappropriate use of artificial intelligence 2023Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics 2024Publication Ethics in the Era of Artificial Intelligence 2025

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