<p>Fake publications, proliferated by paper mills, are a symptom of the modern number-centric academia [<span>1, 2</span>]. The recent Richardson et al. study found that, while fraudulent papers make up a small portion of all publications, the scale of fraud has increased at a shocking rate, not suspected by many [<span>3</span>]. Specifically, the conclusion of Richardson et al.'s study is alarming: that is, “the ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science” [<span>3</span>]. All this is reinforced by a degree of impunity that perpetrators enjoy, leaving researchers disillusioned about the authenticity of existing scientific evidence. The question on the lips of all stakeholders is this: if it is still ‘easy’ to publish fake papers, why has academia allowed the problem to persist and undermine scholarly communication? Here, we discuss this problem from a pragmatic perspective, while stressing that this real problem should not be weaponized against science [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Fraud is neither new nor specific to academia. For example, academia has been wrestling with different types of fraudulent activities for decades, including cheating in exams, bogus colleges, forged degrees, and doctored CVs. Fraud in scholarly communication should be examined comprehensively within this broader context. The core underlying issue is that not all researchers have the necessary skills or resources to maintain high levels of research productivity. Consequently, some individuals may resort to unethical practices to achieve high h-index scores and publication counts like those of well-supported researchers at leading institutions, yet without investing equivalent effort. If scholarly communication is vulnerable to corruption [<span>5</span>], and the consequences for being caught are not harsh, why not game the system?</p><p>I believe here is where the problem lies: the whole purpose of fraudulent activities is to inflate research metrics through manipulation and fraud [<span>6</span>]. Yet, manipulations and fraud are rarely fed back to the system to adjust these metrics. This is why a solution must actively involve the entities that calculate and promote such research metrics: the indexers, like journal indexing and university ranking agencies. Specifically, indexers can impact individuals (and institutions) who engage in fraudulent practices by hurting their research metrics.</p><p>Scholarly communication was profoundly shaped by the introduction of research metrics, originally packaged as objective quantitative measures of research quality and impact [<span>7</span>]. These metrics are widely adopted in academia despite their known limitations and inherent biases [<span>8, 9</span>]. But academia also knew that these metrics can be manipulated, as they soon become bad metrics (Goodhart's law), making the system vulnerable to corruption (Campbell's law). Yet, aca
{"title":"Indexers Should Actively Support the Fight Against Paper Mills","authors":"Mohamed L. Seghier","doi":"10.1002/ima.70230","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ima.70230","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fake publications, proliferated by paper mills, are a symptom of the modern number-centric academia [<span>1, 2</span>]. The recent Richardson et al. study found that, while fraudulent papers make up a small portion of all publications, the scale of fraud has increased at a shocking rate, not suspected by many [<span>3</span>]. Specifically, the conclusion of Richardson et al.'s study is alarming: that is, “the ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science” [<span>3</span>]. All this is reinforced by a degree of impunity that perpetrators enjoy, leaving researchers disillusioned about the authenticity of existing scientific evidence. The question on the lips of all stakeholders is this: if it is still ‘easy’ to publish fake papers, why has academia allowed the problem to persist and undermine scholarly communication? Here, we discuss this problem from a pragmatic perspective, while stressing that this real problem should not be weaponized against science [<span>4</span>].</p><p>Fraud is neither new nor specific to academia. For example, academia has been wrestling with different types of fraudulent activities for decades, including cheating in exams, bogus colleges, forged degrees, and doctored CVs. Fraud in scholarly communication should be examined comprehensively within this broader context. The core underlying issue is that not all researchers have the necessary skills or resources to maintain high levels of research productivity. Consequently, some individuals may resort to unethical practices to achieve high h-index scores and publication counts like those of well-supported researchers at leading institutions, yet without investing equivalent effort. If scholarly communication is vulnerable to corruption [<span>5</span>], and the consequences for being caught are not harsh, why not game the system?</p><p>I believe here is where the problem lies: the whole purpose of fraudulent activities is to inflate research metrics through manipulation and fraud [<span>6</span>]. Yet, manipulations and fraud are rarely fed back to the system to adjust these metrics. This is why a solution must actively involve the entities that calculate and promote such research metrics: the indexers, like journal indexing and university ranking agencies. Specifically, indexers can impact individuals (and institutions) who engage in fraudulent practices by hurting their research metrics.</p><p>Scholarly communication was profoundly shaped by the introduction of research metrics, originally packaged as objective quantitative measures of research quality and impact [<span>7</span>]. These metrics are widely adopted in academia despite their known limitations and inherent biases [<span>8, 9</span>]. But academia also knew that these metrics can be manipulated, as they soon become bad metrics (Goodhart's law), making the system vulnerable to corruption (Campbell's law). Yet, aca","PeriodicalId":14027,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Imaging Systems and Technology","volume":"35 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ima.70230","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145316822","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}