Scientific journals have a growing legitimacy issue
Image: Elsevier Author Services
The rate of fraud in scientific publishers is growing at an alarming pace, with sophisticated underground networks working to infiltrate top journals and publish fake papers, according to a new investigation.
By the numbers: The rate of fake papers generated by these operators roughly doubled every 1.5 years between 2016 and 2020, according to a study published this week in PNAS (that hopefully isn’t also fake). That’s significantly faster than the increase of scientific papers overall, which is doubling every ~15 years.
- The biggest example of mass research fraud occurred at academic publisher Wiley. Last year, it pulled 11,000+ papers and closed 19 journals after discovering many studies were generated by paper mills—factories for fabricated research featuring ghostwriters, complicit editors, and algorithmic nonsense.
Junk science, straight from the mill
How does a fake paper slip through peer review? Here’s the typical blueprint:
- A researcher pays for authorship—sometimes on a paper they never saw
- The study, often AI-generated, is filled with technical-sounding gibberish
- Key terms are distorted to dodge plagiarism detection (e.g., “bosom peril” instead of “breast cancer”)
- It’s submitted to journals where high volume can sometimes mean low scrutiny
Many experts say mass research fraud is a logical outcome of the current scientific publishing system, where researchers worldwide are often required to publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals to win grants or earn promotions. This constant pressure has contributed to a “publish or perish” environment, in which some scientists are motivated to cheat the system.
What’s at stake: Research fraud poses a growing threat to the legitimacy of the ~$30 billion/year academic publishing industry. “The entire structure of science could collapse if this is left unaddressed,” said PNAS study author Luis Amaral of Northwestern University.
📊 Flash poll: How would you best describe your personal confidence in the scientific community?
See a 360° view of what pundits are saying →
Sprinkles in defense of the scientific publishing process
- Some commentators argue that the broader scientific ecosystem depends on independent journals competing to publish the best research, which reinforces rigor and creates essential checks and balances, and major changes to the system would undermine these safeguards.
- Others contend that some scientists have unintentionally rubbed many Americans the wrong way, creating space for bad faith actors—hard-right media personalities and politicians—to make successful headway in tearing down our scientific institutions.
- “This system is critical to Americans’ health. We must defend it.” –NJEM editor-in-chief Eric J. Rubin, and JAMA editor-in-chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo
- “What if MAGA Has a Point About Science?” –Paul M. Sutter, Undark
- “Peer review is meant to prevent scientific misconduct. But it has its own problems “ –Gail Wilson, The Conversation
Sprinkles critical of the scientific publishing process
- Some commentators argue that some of the reason why treatments for diseases like Alzheimer’s remain out of reach despite billions of dollars and countless careers invested is due to a litany of ostensible fraud and other misconduct by scientists trying to ascend in a brutally competitive field.
- Others contend that so-called “experts” have shown miserable judgment in recent years relating to Covid, DEI, and other areas, and it’s understandable that Americans’ overall trust in the scientific community and process is near all-time lows.
- “The Devastating Legacy of Lies in Alzheimer’s Science” –Charles Piller, NY Times
- “Experts have only themselves to blame for the distrust of institutions” –Michael Barone, Washington Examiner
- “How Shame, Blame and the Internet Eroded Trust in Science” –F.D. Flam, Bloomberg
Share this!
Recent Discussion stories
Discussion
| August 6, 2025America’s jobs data has jumped into the spotlight
📝 On Friday, President Trump fired the top official at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. It came after the agency published a weaker-than-expected July jobs report with significant downward revisions in data from previous months.
Discussion
| August 6, 2025🏛️ On Friday, President Trump fired the top official at the Bureau of Labor Statistics after the agency published a weaker-than-expected July jobs report with significant downward revisions in data from previous months.
Discussion
| August 4, 2025The EPA wants to eliminate its authority to fight climate change
🌎 Last week, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced plans to rescind the agency’s landmark 2009 declaration that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a threat to public health and welfare.
You've made it this far...
Let's make our relationship official, no 💍 or elaborate proposal required. Learn and stay entertained, for free.👇
All of our news is 100% free and you can unsubscribe anytime; the quiz takes ~10 seconds to complete