During the May Community Call, we welcomed Dorothy Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology. Dorothy themed her talk around fraudulent behaviors in science, likening them to a virus that can infiltrate and be disruptive, a concept she had been thinking about during the COVID lockdown.
Dorothy began by discussing the common misconception that fraud is a relatively minor problem in science. She elaborated that researchers believe that because science is inherently self-correcting, fraud should be very rare. Unfortunately, Dorothy discusses that, in recent years, there has been an increase in scientific fraud.
Though she began by citing examples of prominent figures who committed scientific fraud, which even led to deaths, she spent most of her talk focusing on the current issue: institutional-scale science fraud, which includes paper mills and a large number of retracted papers.
One would assume that papers produced by paper mills shouldn’t be published because we have peer review, which should be a system that catches such fraud. However, those papers are published anyway. Dorothy believes that some of these manuscripts are convincing enough to pass as authentic papers. This was the case for the papers identified by Jennifer Byrne, a cancer biologist. Jennifer noticed a flurry of scientific papers discussing the gene she studies, which was unusual given that very few people work on this gene. She noticed that those papers used the wrong sequence of nucleotides, and they all had a similar format, as if they would be written from the same template. Working with Cyril Labbé, they developed an automated search for papers that included such wrong sequences. After screening 12,000 papers, they identified 700 with incorrect gene sequences, suggesting a paper mill that used a similar template for papers, differing only in the gene described and the phenotype reported.
Using this kind of template format is just one of the techniques paper mills use. Other techniques used to publish fake papers include selecting reviewers recommended by the authors (who may be fake).
Paper mills might also publish manuscripts in a predatory journal, or a real journal can be hijacked by the bad actors who make the webpage look precisely like the real journal. Other cases might involve situations where the editor is complicit in the fraud and allows for the fake papers to be published. Dorothy discussed that some journals have Special Issues, which can be done in good faith. However, they can also serve as a foot in the door for paper mills, as journals might not be careful enough in selecting guest editors for those issues. After providing examples of some of the fraudulent techniques used by paper mills, she discussed why we should be concerned about it.
Many people believe that fraudulent papers are often published in low-quality journals, and researchers who conduct proper science would not even read or pay attention to them. However, paper mills may affect individuals who attempt to conduct serious research. For example, if a researcher is doing a systematic review, they waste time, because those papers will come up in the search, and the researcher will waste their time reading them just to conclude that they are of poor quality.
Another significant issue is that some people advance their careers by engaging in such fraudulent practices. A system that evaluates researchers by the number of papers they publish creates a strong incentive for abuse. This system is abused by both researchers and publishers. Predatory publishers in particular often prey on researchers from the Global South and countries in which researchers are required to publish a certain number of articles each year. Worldwide, researchers who are required to publish a set number of articles by their institutions in order to graduate or be promoted may feel they have no option but to engage in fraudulent practices, wrongly believing that this is their only option.
Such fraudulent practices also lead to a weakening of public trust in science. Because a significant amount of pseudoscience is now incorporated into the literature, it becomes harder to judge, especially for non-scientists, what science is and what is pseudoscience.
Dorothy then discussed how the spread of research fraud can be stopped. Returning to the comparison of fraud in science to a virus, the solution is also similar to a virus: test and trace, inoculate against the virus, and quarantine those affected.
Test and trace:
Open Science plays a significant role here, for example, in the form of preregistration. She provides an example of cancer genetics, where studies can take years to complete. If studies were preregistered, then there wouldn’t be a problem of paper mills, because paper mills are impatient.
If code and data are open, it’s more challenging to fake them.
Open peer review and post-publication peer review can help identify papers from paper mills.
Inoculate against the virus:
The current incentive structure values publication numbers, which can promote fraudulent behavior. Those incentives need to be removed. Instead of the number of publications, researchers should be evaluated based on the integrity of the research.
Publishers should slow down and stop the proliferation of journals, particularly special issues.
Quarantine:
Editors who fail to do their job correctly and allow fraudulent science to be published should be removed from their positions and barred from serving as editors again.
Fraudulent papers should be promptly retracted.
Institutions should not ignore problems when they occur; instead, they should be transparent and address issues of research misconduct promptly.
During the Q&A session, Dorothy addressed several important issues. One of the issues was determining who should regulate academia and investigate research misconduct. She suggested that it should be an independent body, but not a government body, as this could lead to problems with the government weaponizing science. She elaborated on the pros and cons of several alternatives, including scientific societies and commercial providers.
She also made the case that if there is a problem with science, scientists should promptly and transparently tackle it. If scientists are not open about this problem, it will further undermine trust in science.
When asked about preprints, she made the case that preprints can be more trustworthy than journal papers, as people who commit fraud are less likely to post preprints, since posting a preprint doesn’t benefit them. This can be ironic, as one of the critiques of preprints is that they are not trustworthy. However, considering the research fraud Dorothy discussed, the preprint ecosystem may be less infected with the virus of research fraud compared to the scientific journal ecosystem.
During the May Community Call, we welcomed Dorothy Bishop, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Neuropsychology. Dorothy themed her talk around fraudulent behaviors in science, likening them to a virus that can infiltrate and be disruptive, a concept she had been thinking about during the COVID lockdown.
Dorothy began by discussing the common misconception that fraud is a relatively minor problem in science. She elaborated that researchers believe that because science is inherently self-correcting, fraud should be very rare. Unfortunately, Dorothy discusses that, in recent years, there has been an increase in scientific fraud.
Though she began by citing examples of prominent figures who committed scientific fraud, which even led to deaths, she spent most of her talk focusing on the current issue: institutional-scale science fraud, which includes paper mills and a large number of retracted papers.
One would assume that papers produced by paper mills shouldn’t be published because we have peer review, which should be a system that catches such fraud. However, those papers are published anyway. Dorothy believes that some of these manuscripts are convincing enough to pass as authentic papers. This was the case for the papers identified by Jennifer Byrne, a cancer biologist. Jennifer noticed a flurry of scientific papers discussing the gene she studies, which was unusual given that very few people work on this gene. She noticed that those papers used the wrong sequence of nucleotides, and they all had a similar format, as if they would be written from the same template. Working with Cyril Labbé, they developed an automated search for papers that included such wrong sequences. After screening 12,000 papers, they identified 700 with incorrect gene sequences, suggesting a paper mill that used a similar template for papers, differing only in the gene described and the phenotype reported.
Using this kind of template format is just one of the techniques paper mills use. Other techniques used to publish fake papers include selecting reviewers recommended by the authors (who may be fake).
Paper mills might also publish manuscripts in a predatory journal, or a real journal can be hijacked by the bad actors who make the webpage look precisely like the real journal. Other cases might involve situations where the editor is complicit in the fraud and allows for the fake papers to be published. Dorothy discussed that some journals have Special Issues, which can be done in good faith. However, they can also serve as a foot in the door for paper mills, as journals might not be careful enough in selecting guest editors for those issues. After providing examples of some of the fraudulent techniques used by paper mills, she discussed why we should be concerned about it.
Many people believe that fraudulent papers are often published in low-quality journals, and researchers who conduct proper science would not even read or pay attention to them. However, paper mills may affect individuals who attempt to conduct serious research. For example, if a researcher is doing a systematic review, they waste time, because those papers will come up in the search, and the researcher will waste their time reading them just to conclude that they are of poor quality.
Another significant issue is that some people advance their careers by engaging in such fraudulent practices. A system that evaluates researchers by the number of papers they publish creates a strong incentive for abuse. This system is abused by both researchers and publishers. Predatory publishers in particular often prey on researchers from the Global South and countries in which researchers are required to publish a certain number of articles each year. Worldwide, researchers who are required to publish a set number of articles by their institutions in order to graduate or be promoted may feel they have no option but to engage in fraudulent practices, wrongly believing that this is their only option.
Such fraudulent practices also lead to a weakening of public trust in science. Because a significant amount of pseudoscience is now incorporated into the literature, it becomes harder to judge, especially for non-scientists, what science is and what is pseudoscience.
Dorothy then discussed how the spread of research fraud can be stopped. Returning to the comparison of fraud in science to a virus, the solution is also similar to a virus: test and trace, inoculate against the virus, and quarantine those affected.
Test and trace:
Inoculate against the virus:
Quarantine:
During the Q&A session, Dorothy addressed several important issues. One of the issues was determining who should regulate academia and investigate research misconduct. She suggested that it should be an independent body, but not a government body, as this could lead to problems with the government weaponizing science. She elaborated on the pros and cons of several alternatives, including scientific societies and commercial providers.
She also made the case that if there is a problem with science, scientists should promptly and transparently tackle it. If scientists are not open about this problem, it will further undermine trust in science.
When asked about preprints, she made the case that preprints can be more trustworthy than journal papers, as people who commit fraud are less likely to post preprints, since posting a preprint doesn’t benefit them. This can be ironic, as one of the critiques of preprints is that they are not trustworthy. However, considering the research fraud Dorothy discussed, the preprint ecosystem may be less infected with the virus of research fraud compared to the scientific journal ecosystem.