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

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 number of articles and receive more citations, they have become the primary clientele trapped in the web of these unethical practices. The spread of such unethical behaviors in the processes of publishing and evaluating science is a serious threat to scientific research in the world, leading to a loss of public trust in science 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

References

  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.
Journal of Isfahan Medical School
Volume 43, Issue 825
1st Week, October
September and October 2025
Pages 893-895

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 January 2025
  • Accept Date: 05 October 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics