The Black Triangle of Scientific Misconduct in Publishing Articles

Document Type : Letter to Editor

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Medical Library & Information Science, Department of Medical Library and Information Science, School of Management and Medical Informatics, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Lorestan University of Medical Sciences, Khorramabad, Iran

10.48305/jims.v43.i825.0893

Abstract

The three growing phenomena: Paper Mills, Review Mills, and Citation Mills, are known as the three sides of the triangle of scientific misconduct, have raised serious concerns about research credibility in societies. A report by the Committee on Publication Ethics and The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers states that 2% of articles submitted to journals may originate from paper mills. As researchers and faculty members face countless challenges to increase their publications and citations, are the main customers caught in the trap of these immoralities. The spread of such unethical behaviors in the processes of publishing and evaluating science is a serious threat to scientific research in the world, which will lead to weakening public trust in research and destroying the credibility of knowledge. Countering these phenomena requires decisive measures and the development of clear regulations to protect scientific and ethical principles.

Highlights

Mina Mahami-Oskouei: Google Scholar, PubMed

Mojgan Zareivenovel: Google Scholar, PubMed

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Eriksson S, Helgesson G. The false academy: predatory publishing in science and bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 2017; 20(2): 163-70.
  2. Cardenuto JP, Moreira D, Rocha A. Unveiling scientific articles from paper mills with provenance analysis. PLoS One 2024; 19(10): e0312666.
  3. Rivera H. Fake peer review and inappropriate authorship are real evils. J Korean Med Sci 2019; 34(2): e6.
  4. Smart P. Paper mills, fraudulent authors, and editorial responses. Science Editor and Publisher 2023; 10(2): 165-9.
  5. Noorden RV. More than 10,000 research papers were retracted in 2023 - A new record. Nature 2023; 624(7992): 479-81.
  6. STM C. Paper Mills — Research report from COPE & STM. Committee on Publication Ethics. 2022. Available from: https://www.scieditor.ru/jour/article/view/376
  7. Hackett R, Kelly S. Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills. Cambridge: The Company of Biologists Ltd; 2020. p. bio056556.
  8. Oviedo-García MÁ. The review mills, not just (self-) plagiarism in review reports, but a step further. Scientometrics 2024; 129(9): 5805-13.
  9. Wilhite A, Fong E. Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing. Science (New York, NY). 2012; 335: 542-3.
  10. Fong EA, Patnayakuni R, Wilhite AW. Accommodating coercion: Authors, editors, and citations. Research Policy 2023; 52(5): 104754.