Early May, I attended the 2026 World Conference on Research Integrity (WCRI) in Vancouver, BC, Canada. This conference is held every two years. In 2024, I went to the WCRI in Athens, Greece, and in 2022 to the one in Cape Town, South Africa. In this post, I will provide a short summary and links to my BlueSky #WCRI2026 posts for all the sessions I attended.
An overview of general news and articles about science integrity and some cases that I have worked on.
Science sleuths
The Rise of the Science Sleuths – When an Alzheimer’s paper came under scrutiny, correcting the scientific record meant battling much bigger problems – Jessica Wapner – Undark
The US Office of Research Integrity updated its regulations on handling research misconduct allegations. Key updates include clarifying the inquiry process and adjusting how institutions should handle the allegations and record the process.
James Heathers published a preprint arguing that the old, often-cited number that 2% of papers are fake is outdated and a vast underestimate. In a new preprint, he argues it might be 1 in 7 papers, based on 12 studies that together analyze 75,000 scientific articles.
How a Scientific Dispute Spiralled Into a Defamation Lawsuit – What does a Harvard Business School professor’s decision to sue the professors who raised questions about her research bode for academic autonomy? By Gideon Lewis-Kraus – New Yorker
New academic AI guidelines aim to curb research misconduct. The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the country’s top science institute, on Tuesday published new guidelines on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research, as part of its efforts to improve scientific integrity and reduce research misconduct, such as data fabrication and plagiarism. – Zhang Weilan – Global Times
New Publication and Editorials
Quantifying Data Distortion in Bar Graphs in Biological Research. We developed a framework to quantify data distortion and analyzed bar graphs published across 3387 articles in 15 journals, finding consistent data distortions across journals and common biological data types. – Lin and Landry – bioRxiv
The Academic Culture of Fraud. The trustees maintain that the fraud arose from “lab culture and management,” and therefore implicitly that there is no single individual who bears moral or procedural responsibility for actually falsifying the data. – Ben Landau-Taylor – Palladium
Journal of Molecular Liquids vs One-Man Papermills – Mu Yang catches two crooks, Ayman Atta and S Muthu, who flooded one Elsevier journal (and several others) with ridiculous hand-drawn fraud. Whom to believe, the peer review, or your own eyes? – Leonid Schneider – For Better Science
With Random Precision. Papermills continue to appear on the scene (or rather, they have been there all along, waiting to be noticed) and once again we find ourselves with shovels and brooms, cleaning up after the performing elephants. – Smut Clyde – For Better Science
Scientific whistleblowers can be compensated for their service. To help correct the incentives, Ben Laundau-Taylor suggests that science could borrow an idea from the US financial system, where an SEC bounty program pays whistleblowers 10-30% of the fines imposed by the government. – Chris Said
Oxford Brookes professor awarded for academic integrity work – Professor Mary Davis has been given a National Teaching Fellowship, which celebrates individuals who have made an outstanding impact on student outcomes and teaching in higher education. – OxfordMail
Senior biochemist made up data in 13 studies – US Office of Research Integrity report aligns with investigation by the University of Maryland, Baltimore -Dalmeet Singh Chawla, special to C&EN
Sleuths spur cleanup at journal with nearly 140 retractions and counting. The mass retractions began over a year after sleuths Alexander Magazinov and Guillaume Cabanac first raised concerns about the presence of suspicious citations, tortured phrases and undisclosed use of AI in the journal’s articles. – Avery Orrall – Retraction Watch
UOW Age of Integrity – Game-based learning on Academic Integrity – European Network for Academic Integrity / University of Wollongong
Artificial intelligence and science
Flood of ‘junk’: How AI is changing scientific publishing. Several experts who track down problems in studies told AFP that the rise of AI has turbocharged the existing problems in the multi-billion-dollar sector. – Daniel Lawler – AFP/Yahoo News
Has your paper been used to train an AI model? Almost certainly. Artificial-intelligence developers are buying access to valuable data sets that contain research papers — raising uncomfortable questions about copyright – Elizabeth Gibney – Nature
Three ways to promote critical engagement with GenAI – However much we fear its impact or despise its outputs, when teaching humanities, the best response is to encourage students to engage with it critically – Neville Morley – Times Higher Education
Should We Publish Fewer Papers? By this proposition, I am not advocating that we all “slack off”, but rather that we work harder to make sure we publish fewer but higher quality papers with new and significant scientific insights instead of reporting routine or incremental studies in large numbers of papers.- Song Jin – ACS Energy Letters
Hindawi — and its parent company, Wiley — have recently announced that they will retract hundreds of papers from journals targeted by paper mills. The papers were all published in ‘special issues’, with the guest editors being either asleep at the wheel or perhaps knowingly looking the other way.
In this blog post, I will take an in-depth look at some of these papers.
Previously I wrote about the Tadpole Paper Mill and the Stockphoto Paper Mill papers. Paper Mills are companies that sell fake or plagiarized scientific papers to authors who need them for their career. Certain countries have strict requirements or monetary incentives for medical doctors, graduate students, or other researchers to publish papers. In such countries, other researchers or business folks have found creative ways of making money by selling fake papers to researchers. Such paper mills are similar to essay mills where ghostwriters offer their services to undergraduate students.
Countless hours have been put into finding such linked sets of papers by volunteers such as Smut Clyde, Tiger, Jennifer Byrne, Jana Christopher, and Anna Abalkina. Here, we will look at a slightly different paper mill.
Citations lend credibility to a scientific paper. And sometimes even result in a cash bonus. But while most researchers just hope their paper will be cited by others, some authors have found more ‘creative’ ways of getting their papers noticed. A recent comment on PubPeer offers a glimpse behind the scenes.
A short post highlighting a small set of papers (currently five) that all share some interesting features. As before, these might all have been produced by the same paper-writing entity, a so-called “paper mill”.
Similar to the Tadpole paper set, where all Western blot panels showed the same background noise, most wound healing assay photos in this mini-mill share the same microscope irregularities. And all of them describe a group of 48 patients.
While working on the larger “Tadpole” and “StockPhoto” paper set, plenty of other papers with similar title and layout structure were found that appeared to belong to different sets.
In this post, I will present to you the “Effect” paper set, uncovered by super-spotter Hoya Camphorifolia (a pseudonym).
I called this set the “Effect” set because about half of the papers’ titles start with “Effect of” or “Effects of”.
As with other paper sets suspected of being produced by a paper mill, this group of papers are all authored by different research groups at different hospitals, studying different animal models and therapeutics. Yet, they all share at least one image with each other.
A small thread on Twitter (now deleted) pointed me to the website YMGrad.com, “Your Gateway to Study Abroad“. The site promises to help students be admitted to graduate schools at top universities worldwide.
One of the services offered on the site is paid authorship on a paper – without the students needing to do any research.
“Are you looking to buy your own custom-made scientific paper? You have come to the right place. We are the Stock Photo Paper Mill! You can pick and choose all kinds of great items from our pool of stock photos to create your own paper. We have photos featuring colony formation, wound healing, and transwell assays. We have survival plots and flow cytometry panels too! Just pick what you like from our catalog, and we will turn your selection into your own, unique paper. “
A hypothetical commercial for a paper mill.
Stock photos are photos that you can pick and buy from a catalog. Some sites even offer free stock photos. Stock photos are often used by new sites and bloggers to illustrate their stories. Some photos can even be funny, especially if they depict models pretending to be professionals. On MicrobiomeDigest.com I have several blog posts about laboratory stock photo fails that might make you smile.
Here I will discuss the Stock Photo Papers, a set of 121 papers, almost exclusively published in the same scientific journal. The papers all have different authors from different institutions, and describe different cancer types and tissue samples.
However, although each of these papers looks unique at first glance, all papers in this set contain images from the same library of about 100 photos and plots. Like images in a stock photo library, each of these photos was used multiple times in different papers. My findings, covered by Eva Xiao in the Wall Street Journal, suggest that they were all created by the same paper mill.