Abstract
Importance Paper mills are systematic fraud organizations that mass-produce fabricated papers, submit them under researchers’ names, and profit by charging fees or selling authorship. Their products have infiltrated scientific literature databases, yet the academic community remains uncertain about their potential impact on scholarly research.
Objective Our study investigates the citation contamination of systematic reviews in the life sciences by paper mill articles, aiming to determine whether these fabricated papers undermine the status of systematic reviews as the “gold standard” of evidence synthesis.
Evidence Review We conducted a cross-sectional study of 100,000 systematic reviews published in the life sciences between 2013 and 2023, as indexed in the Web of Science. We extracted their references and matched them against retracted articles in the Retraction Watch Database, specifically those retracted due to paper mills. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to characterize the features of contaminated systematic reviews, including their subject areas, journals of publication, and citation patterns.
Findings A total of 179 systematic reviews were contaminated by paper mill articles, representing a contamination rate of 0.179%. Although the overall extent of contamination was small, an increasing trend was observed. Notably, 61 citations occurred after the articles had been retracted. Oncology was the most severely affected field. Four systematic reviews each cited five or more paper mill articles; all were published by journals under the same academic publisher. Among those citing three or more paper mill articles, 23 (76.67%) were published in journals ranked in the top 50% of their respective fields by impact factor (i.e., those classified as Q1 or Q2).
Conclusions and Relevance Systematic reviews, as comprehensive syntheses of high-quality evidence, must not incorporate systematically fabricated articles. The scientific community should remain vigilant about the growing trend of paper mill contamination in life sciences systematic reviews. Correcting and retracting previously contaminated reviews, and developing new tools to help researchers identify potential paper mill articles in literature databases, will be essential steps to ensure the integrity of evidence synthesis.
Question Do paper mill articles contaminate systematic reviews in the life sciences, and what is their potential impact on the integrity of evidence synthesis?
Findings In a cross-sectional study of 100,000 systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2023, 0.179% were contaminated by paper mill articles, with an increasing trend observed over time. Oncology was the most affected field, and 61 post-retraction citations were identified.
Meaning These findings underscore the need for heightened vigilance, systematic correction of contaminated reviews, and development of tools to identify paper mill articles to safeguard the integrity of evidence synthesis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
