ethical paper mills

QuestionsAnswered.net

What's Your Question?

How to Use a Milling Machine

If you work with metal or wood, chances are you have a use for a milling machine. These mechanical tools are used in metal-working and woodworking, and some machines can be quite high-tech to produce intricate results.

What is a Milling Machine?

A milling machine may be your go-to tool to cut, bore, drill or make slots in metal or wood. Milling machines come in several different styles, and you can use special tool heads with the machine to cut or drill in various ways. It’s also possible to use a milling machine in conjunction with a computer to create intricate patterns and cuts. Because milling machines are so versatile, you use different tool bits depending on the material you are using.

Types of Milling Machines

Knee-type milling machines are supported by a large casting, called a “knee.” You adjust the knee vertically to create your workspace. Within this category, a plain vertical milling machine has a swiveling head so you can work on angular surfaces. This feature enables you to work in tight areas. Another type of machine is the plain horizontal milling machine has a fixed spindle and a table swivel housing that moves out so you can work on angular pieces.

Ram-type milling machines have spindles attached to adjustable housing on the column, making it possible to move the cutter forward or backward on the horizontal plane. Within this category, the universal ram-type milling machine is similar to the plain horizontal milling machine, except for the positioning of the spindle on the ram.

Milling Machine Safety

Do not use a milling machine unless you are fully trained, and you understand all of the features and safety precautions of the machine. Some safety tips include:

Consult Your Milling Machine Manual

For safety and the best results, read your milling machine manual from cover to cover before you begin using the milling machine. This equipment is powerful and dangerous, and the possibility of injury is high if you’re not careful.

Basic Operation

Surface milling involves milling a flat surface, positioning the milling cutter axis so that it’s parallel to the surface you’re milling. Clamp your piece to your table or support it in a vise. Your milling machine needs to be set at an angle to the base plane or the workpiece. Adjust the holding device so that the surface of the workpiece is parallel to the table on the machine.

Choose your cutter after studying your drawing, choosing the best cutter based on the size and shape of your piece. A wide cutter is ideal for a wide area. Use a coarse tooth cutter for rough cuts and a fine-tooth cutter for finish work. Choose a fast cutting speed for finishing work and a slower speed for rough cutting.

Paper Mills—The Dark Side of the Academic Publishing Industry

Integrity within scientific publishing is extremely important, as we must put our faith in science. Fake information and fake data are on the rise, and the onous is on publishers to crack down on misleading publications, as publications have a massive impact on the careers of researchers, and the process of applying for grants and patents is reliant on reliable publication records. We discussed paper mills with Damaris Critchlow, Head of Publication Ethics at MDPI. She is responsible for resolving escalated ethics cases and implementing policies and workflows in collaboration with the Ethics Committee.

What are Paper Mills?

Paper mills are a type of industrial fraud, which is prevalent in the publishing sector. Paper mills are profit-oriented, unofficial and potentially illegal organisations which produce and sell fabricated or manipulated manuscripts which resemble genuine legitimate research. 1

The papers produced by paper mills often show no real data, manipulate images and have authors which are hard to trace, without institutional emails or public records on ORCID or SCOPUS, amongst other key features which allow them to be identified as paper mill submissions. The telltale signs of paper mill papers can be detected using AI and publishers are working collaboratively to detect as many illegal submissions as possible, with guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). However, much of the time it is difficult to spot paper mill submissions until the paper is published. This is because many systems rely on large quantities of submissions before a trend can be seen, to isolate and recall falsified submissions. 1

Why Would Researchers Use Paper Mills?

“We don’t know” states Critchlow, “They [possibly] choose to use paper mills when they face a pressure to publish, for whatever reason. There are academic expectations, or there might be a publish or perish culture, and papermills are a response to that pressure ”. Paper mills can be used by researchers, students and low ranking institutions, under pressure for increasing their statistics or publication numbers. Often the motivation is finanical or for status; for example, a researcher may need a certain number of published papers to be considered for promotion or raise, so will chose to pay for paper mill papers rather than conducting the research themselves. 2

Paper mills provide many different and varied services, from academic assistance in carrying out experiments, all the way through to writing entire papers with falsified data for researchers to submit as their own for consideration. Using paper mills isn’t cheap for “authors” either, as often pricing scales with journal notoriety. Authors who wish to have papers written to be submitted to journals with an IF greater than 3 could cost upwards of 30,000 EUR. With these costs, paper mills are big business, with the industry valued at roughly 2 Billion EUR. 2

How Do Publishers Fight Back?

“We take [possible paper mill submissions] very seriously” says Critchlow. “In all cases, we follow the guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to support an investigation. We consider it to be systematic manipulation of the peer review process. “

When an issue arises which may be due to a paper mill submission, the authors will usually be contacted and asked to provide the original, raw data. From this point, an investigation begins on the manuscript. The affiliation may also be contacted to aid in the investigation. Typically, authors who submit paper mill papers won’t use their academic email addresses, which makes it difficult to verify their identity. For this reason, it can be hard to tell whether the corresponding author is the actual author, the buyer (of a paper mill paper) or, in some cases, the agent from the paper mill company, who the publisher is dealing with. 1,3

Even when publishers do receive the original data, they cannot always be trusted. In many cases, the authors send lots of files, which are often not clearly labelled, many of which require specialist software to access. 3

In the long term, paper mill submissions have a lasting impact on the publishing industry. With no end in sight, what can the publishing industry do to eliminate paper mill papers?. “[Eliminating paper mills] is really important, because it’s falsified research. It’s manipulating the peer review process. It’s putting scientific research out there, into the world, that isn’t accurate, that hasn’t been performed to scientific standards. It’s really challenging because, ultimately, you do not want that work to be cited, you don’t want the work contributing to scientific literature if the work hasn’t been done” adds Critchlow. There are two approaches to this: collaboration and technology. 4

Collaboration is necessary to crack down on paper mills. “The scale of the problem is quite large and, while we can do as much as we can as an individual publisher, sometimes one publisher might identify a paper as being from a paper mill and reject that paper, but the article goes on to be accepted for publication by another publisher. It would be helpful if there were some way for publishers to be able to communicate ” states Critchlow. However, there are pitfalls in collaboration. “We certainly need cross-publisher policies and collective action. Collaboration is always going to be a challenge between publishers and there needs to be continuous effort to facilitate it.” These challenges need to be overcome in order to prevent paper mill papers from being kept in the version of record. 4

An alternative approach is through technology. With a publishing arms race happening, it is imperative that publishers stay ahead of the curve with regard to technology involved in spotting paper mill submissions. As time goes by, more advanced technology is being used by paper mills to outsmart publishers. AI and other software can be developed and utilised to detect potentially suspicious submissions. “Technology has the potential to detect specific indicators of paper mill papers, so it is useful. However it isn’t 100% perfect, and there’s always a human needed who can make an informed judgement regarding what the technology has flagged” says Critchlow, pointing out that the process is not 100% accurate and mistakes are still made, leading to mass retractions when paper mill submissions are discovered. Technological advancement in detecting paper mill submissions would benefit from collaboration between publishers, meaning to truly take on paper mills, we must all work together to combat misinformation. 4

English Resources , Journals , Academic Resources

Using Templates to Make Projects Easier

Work–life balance: standing on some books in a library.

Journals , Academic Resources

9 Work-Life Balance Hacks for Academics

Banner for writing in English article about basic grammar, how to write.

English Resources , Academic Resources

Writing Your Manuscript in English

Academic goals achieved! A man throws his papers in the air.

Open Science , Academic Resources

10 Ways to Achieve Your Academic Goals in 2023

Getting Involved Q&A over a blue background. Questions about the editorial process.

Getting Involved with the Editorial Process Q&A

Mini drones are leading the way when it comes to monitoring the environment.

Mini Drones Could Predict the Weather and Save Lives

Purple background and question marks, with Review Q&A in front.

Reviewing Your Manuscript Q&A

Submission Q&A with question marks in the background. Everything you need to know about submitting your manuscript.

Manuscript Submission Q&A

Academic Resources , Editorial Process

How to Advance as an Early Career Researcher

Academic Resources , Interviews

Early Career Research: Interview with Two MDPI Award Winners

Add comment cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy preferences.

From sharing the latest MDPI blog news, to showcasing our most popular articles, the newsletters will keep you in the loop with everything good going on in the science world.

A recent COPE forum discussion focused on the significant problem of “paper mills”. This term describes the process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale. The concerns with these submissions include faked or manipulated data/images, the use of stock images, substantial authorship changes, and plagiarism, which is not detected because it comes from a translated version of another article.

There are many reasons why this phenomenon poses a challenge for publishers. Paper mills are often detected after a pattern of submission behaviour across several submissions and journals becomes apparent. There is wide variation in “signs” for paper mill activity which can be difficult to distinguish from honest and legitimate author behaviours. Even original data can be convincingly fabricated and must be independently verified, a challenge in itself for a busy journal with busy peer reviewers and editors, who are usually not in a position to spot such problems.

Typically, when concerns arise, we will contact the listed authors for an explanation, or contact the institution to request assistance with an investigation. However, the authors of these submissions often use non-institutional email addresses, which are difficult to verify. This then raises the concern that even when we do receive a response to our queries, we can’t be assured we’re actually communicating with the authors. In addition, when we have reached out to the institutions (here it’s often not clear who to contact), we may not receive a response.

In situations where we do receive a response to our requests to share the original data, we receive large numbers of files, often not clearly labelled, which sometimes require specialist laboratory software to open. Managing this at scale is a significant challenge, and in many cases the trends only emerge when comparing with other potential paper mill submissions or published articles. By this time, many paper mill submissions might have been published, and at that stage we are alerted to the problem by “data sleuths” such as Elisabeth Bik , who skilfully detect suspicious patterns.

Although, once detected we do take steps to investigate and correct the scholarly records (eg, retraction or expression of concern), we need to ensure we prevent these papers being published in the first place. Paper mills are quick to adapt to publisher and journal requests and investigation processes, and continue to move the goalposts in order to manipulate the publishing process . So, what can publishers do?

Firstly, publishers need to take collective action to put in place appropriate checks and balances , and create cross-publisher policies. In this regard, there’s an important opportunity here for COPE to continue to work with publishers to create guidance and adapt flowcharts to assist in detecting potential manuscripts from paper mills early in the process. This in turn will increase awareness and training amongst journal editors, editorial staff, and publishers so that additional requirements and enhanced checks at the submission stage can be adopted more widely (e.g., mandatory data sharing policies, especially for the types of data which can be more easily faked/manipulated).

The need for technology to help address these issues is clear, and so publishers are collaborating with developers of such programmes (e.g., with institutions , and organisations such as Proofig and a STM-STEC working group on image alterations). There are also conferences dedicated to technical solutions like those that are required where innovations can be shared (e.g., https://cri-conf.org /).

At the time of writing, the scale of this problem is mainly affecting biomedical journals, but there’s also evidence that other disciplines are being affected too. It’s important we continue to learn from each other, and collaborate on data sharing policies, technology and training, in order to collectively combat this manipulation of the publishing process.

Sabina Alam, Director of Publishing Ethics and Integrity, Taylor & Francis Group

Jigisha Patel, Independent Research Integrity Consultant

Christna Chap, Head of Editorial Development, Karger Publishers

Sarah Robbie, Head of Research Integrity & Ethics, Taylor & Francis Group

Ulf Scheffler, Deputy Editor, Wiley

Elizabeth Moylan, Publisher (Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics), Wiley

Page last updated

12 October 2020

Related resources

Paper Mills- A Rising Concern in the Academic Community

This article is also available in Japanese

A good publishing record is one of the essential criteria for promotion, tenure, and grant acquisition for future projects. The pressure to publish more papers drives researchers towards unethical practices such as purchasing fictitious research papers. Academic frauds including data falsification, image manipulation, fabricated peer review have plagued the research publishing landscape for years together! The research community is working hard to maintain research integrity. Despite strict measures and vigilance, research misconduct and academic foul play has been discovered in manuscripts accepted by publishing powerhouses such as the Nature Publishing Group, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, etc. In addition to concerns related to plagiarism, ethical issues, and authorship disputes, the scientific community is now bracing to fight against the act of systematic manipulation of manuscripts by “paper mills”.

What is a Paper Mill?

Paper Mill is a potentially illegal organization that produces and sells fraudulent scientific manuscripts written by ghostwriters on demand! Researchers who require publications for furthering their career or meeting institutional criteria for promotion buy publication ready manuscripts. The service is purely profit-oriented. Researchers pay hefty amounts for authorships on ready-to-submit manuscripts. Their potential clients include researchers who wish an easy way out to publish in international journals without actually engaging in research. Some of the paper mills might have actual laboratories that perform experiments and produce actual data and images. Further, several authors buy these data to use in different experiments.

Hallmarks of Paper Mill Generated Manuscripts

Peculiar characteristics of manuscripts produced by paper mills include a generic hypothesis and experimental strategies, textual and organizational resemblances, and images that reflect duplication or manipulation. Let us go through them one-by-one.

Manuscripts produced using paper mills have a set template having unusual similarity of text. They may also contain phrases that are almost identical or have been phrased in an awkward manner. Consider the following sentences: This study allowed us to have a better and in-depth understanding of the association between mutations in gene X and colon cancer risk. B. This study assisted in having an in-depth and better understanding of the association between gene Y and cervical cancer risk.

Both these statements have minor variations in wording. Authors simply plug in names of different genes and diseases into appropriate positions.

Although the images can be real photos of cells/tissues, gels, flow cytometry profiles, they are fabricated to suit the experimental requirements.

For examples, western blot images presented in paper mill-generated manuscripts inexplicably contain similar background patterns and peculiarly shaped bands. A similar background across images published in manifold manuscript suggests either computer generated or copy-pasted images from other sources. The gel images also lack stains, dots, or fine smears that are normally present in such images.

Guillaume Filion, a biologist at the Center for Genomic Regulation in Barcelona has claimed that several manuscripts report the use of ‘Beggers funnel plot’ . It is a statistical test that does not exist. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that multiple scientists working in different research labs independently invent the same name.

Concerns Associated with Identifying Manuscripts Produced by Paper Mills

Approaches to Detect Manuscripts Generated by Paper Mills

Editors and reviewers have become highly vigilant about submissions that are churned out of paper mills. An extensive investigation by RSC Advances led to retraction of about 68 articles on the grounds of falsified research. Following are the various means used to ensure no foul play is involved.

What Should Researchers Do to Boost Journals’ Confidence in Their Manuscripts?

As researchers would you only be concerned about increasing your publication count even at the cost of losing authenticity of papers? Wouldn’t citing of such papers mislead other researchers to falsified results and eventually hamper the growth of scholastic reasoning in science? Please let us know your thoughts on this in the comments section below. You can also visit our Q&A forum for frequently asked questions related to other unethical practices and how to avoid them to enhance your publishing record answered by our team that comprises subject-matter experts, eminent researchers, and publication experts.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular

Research Problem Statement — Find out how to write an impactful one!

What Is a Research Problem Statement? A research problem statement is a clear, concise, and…

Are Secondary Submissions Unethical? — 4 reasons to not republish translated articles

Submitting a translated article that is already published in another language is a practice that…

2022 in a Nutshell — Reminiscing the year when opportunities were seized and feats were achieved!

It’s beginning to look a lot like success! Some of the greatest opportunities to research…

A Comprehensive Series on Clinical Research Writing: Part I — Protocol Writing

Importance of research protocol How to structure a research protocol Common pitfalls to avoid

Writing Limitations of Research Study — 4 Reasons Why It Is Important!

It is not unusual for researchers to come across the term limitations of research during…

How to Develop a Good Research Question? — Types & Examples

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

For what are you most likely to depend on AI-assistance?

Ethical Pulp & Paper Ltd, Head Office

Company database producers of pulp, mechanical pulp, paper and board.

Asia › Bangladesh › Dhaka

Selected Topnews from the Paper Industry

professional user, professional access, database access, professional user, online directory

Become a professional user on paper-world.com

Gold Bundle, advertisement, advertorial, directory, paper industry, paper world

Gold Bundle - the marketing all-inclusive package for the paper industry

Silver Bundle, professional package, advertorial, advertisement, Top-News

Silver Bundle - the professional marketing package for the paper industry

Map, marketing, bronze bundle, professional package

Bronze Bundle - the basic marketing package for the paper industry

The book edition Birkner - International PaperWorld

Advertorial for the News section

Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills

Managing Editor, Biology Open.

Editor-in-Chief, Biology Open.

Rachel Hackett, Steven Kelly; Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills. Biol Open 15 October 2020; 9 (10): bio056556. doi: https://doi.org/10.1242/bio.056556

Download citation file:

In 2013, a journalist working for the journal Science launched a ‘sting’ operation to highlight perceived flaws in the peer-review processes operated by Open Access journals ( Bohannon, 2013 ). Biology Open (BiO) was one of the Open Access journals tested – the submitted ‘nonsense’ paper was rejected without sending for review ( Hackett et al., 2013 ).

As noted at the time, “Despite the policies, checks and balances that have been implemented [on BiO], it can be difficult to identify and block papers that include flawed work or outright fraudulent data.” Back in 2013, it might have appeared that such scientific misconduct was rare. However, much has changed. Resources such as PubPeer and Retraction Watch provide platforms that enable the scientific community to document and catalogue issues of concern with scientific publications, many of which can only be explained by the presence of falsified data. Moreover, the work of Dr Elisabeth Bik and colleagues has begun to expose the extent of fraud in scientific publishing ( Bik et al., 2016 ). The emerging truth from these community efforts is uncomfortable; it appears that misconduct when publishing scientific research runs much deeper than the occasional ‘sting’ operation. Moreover, it appears that fabricated research papers are readily available for purchase by scientists driven by the need to publish more papers to further their careers (see Byrne and Christopher, 2020 ).

The vast majority of ethical scientific publishers are grappling with this problem. Although there are advanced technological solutions for the detection of plagiarised text (e.g. the iThenticate plagiarism detection software), equivalent solutions for the detection of plagiarised data or data manipulation are less well developed. As exemplified by the efforts of the community of scientists who contribute to PubPeer and Retraction Watch, detection of fraud in scientific data is still best performed by scientists themselves. Thus, many publishers now employ data sleuths to examine manuscripts for evidence of potentially falsified data. There is a pressing need for technological development in this area.

Despite employing scientists to evaluate the data, using plagiarism detection software, and ensuring best publishing practices are followed with respect to peer review, it is difficult for journals to protect themselves from those intent on committing misconduct. BiO, as with many other journals, seems to have fallen victim to this fraud.

The publisher of BiO – The Company of Biologists (a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to supporting and inspiring the biological community) – employs a Publishing Ethics Coordinator, whose role it is to investigate potential ethics issues, before and after publication, as well as older historical cases highlighted on sites such as PubPeer. All accepted articles on BiO are checked for text plagiarism using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software, which checks for plagiarism against cited journal content and 70 billion current and archived web pages. Although no assumptions of wrongdoing are made, any issues that are flagged are escalated to the Publishing Ethics Coordinator and, if necessary, to the journal Editor-in-Chief. COPE – The Committee on Publication Ethics – may also be consulted. Recruitment of independent experts has been undertaken when helpful. Particularly serious cases could lead to rescinding of the acceptance decision and escalation to the authors’ institutes. Post-publication issues could lead to the publication of an Expression of Concern and possible retraction, according to the guidelines recommended by COPE (and outlined in BiO's journal policies ).

Figures represent a more significant challenge to detectives working to identify scientific misconduct. Guidelines are provided to BiO authors concerning unacceptable practices. Figures within accepted articles are checked by trained in-house production staff for evidence of image manipulation. Byrne and Christopher ( Byrne and Christopher, 2020 ) have identified two types of fraudulent images: invented images and stock images. Invented images are typically western blots, and might include placing individual bands onto false backgrounds, non-linear adjustments, the splicing of multiple images to suggest they come from the same gel, duplicated bands and lanes, and grouping or consolidation of the data (e.g. removal of lanes) (see Box 1 ). Stock images are more difficult to detect and show none of the manipulation likely from the production of invented images. They tend only to be spotted by eagle-eyed readers if repeated in multiple submissions or publications. This is beyond the reach of our production team, which is generally able to spot manipulations within and across images within individual articles (for examples, see Box 1 ). This has prompted the Company to more urgently investigate sophisticated manipulation detection software, which is currently being trialled.

Adjustments should be applied to the whole image so no specific feature of the original data, including background, is obscured, eliminated or misrepresented as a consequence. Any alterations, such as non-linear adjustments (e.g. changes to gamma settings), must be disclosed.

The splicing of multiple images to suggest they come from a single micrograph or gel is not allowed.

Any grouping or consolidation of data (e.g. removal of lanes from gels and blots or cropping of images) must be made apparent (i.e. with dividing lines or white spaces) and should be explicitly indicated in the figure legends.

If any inappropriate figure manipulations are detected, again this is escalated to the Publishing Ethics Coordinator in the first instance. They will ask the authors for all the raw data underpinning the results and then conduct a forensic analysis. If problems are detected after acceptance, but before publication, the acceptance might be rescinded. For articles that have already been published, further steps could be taken as outlined above.

For BiO, during 2019, pre-publication issues arose in 9% of accepted articles and four issues were raised post-publication (including historical articles). We published no Publisher's Notes/Expressions of Concern, no Corrections and no Retractions relating to potential ethics cases raised during 2019. In 2020 to date, we have published Expressions of Concern relating to two papers, as a result of concerns rasied by the Editor-in-Chief about the data presented. Our investigations are ongoing.

BiO also strives to adopt best practices with regards to author contribution rules, management of conflicts of interest and reporting of experimental subjects. Peer review is a focus too. To prevent the problem of fake reviews, whereby authors attempt to manipulate the peer review process, reviewers are now required to provide institutional email addresses or ORCIDs (as are corresponding authors at submission and all authors at revision).

BiO publishes peer-reviewed original research in all areas of the biological and biomedical sciences. It is essential that the work addresses a clearly stated, non-trivial, biological hypothesis. It must, in the opinion of the Editor, enhance the literature and be of use to the community. One charge levelled at Open Access journals is that they are more likely to accept submissions regardless of the quality of the research, as that is how they become profitable. Unfortunately, there are numerous so-called predatory journals that do just that. However, the current rejection rate – 67% of articles submitted to BiO are rejected – should absolve BiO of any accusations of predatory practices. BiO and its research-active academic Editors are firmly focused on providing a service to the community by publishing rigorously conducted research. BiO also supports early-career researchers by publishing its hugely popular First Person interviews alongside research articles. BiO has created career development opportunities through our Meeting Reviews and Future Leader Reviews programme. BiO and The Company of Biologists will together continue to strive to ensure that the profits from the hard work of scientists inspire future scientific discovery and help develop the next generation of researchers.

Email alerts

A year at the forefront of....

BiO’s new ‘A Year at the Forefront of…’ series of Review articles by early-career reseearchers aims to highlight key developments that have made an impact in a specific biological field during the past year. Read more and propose a Review here .

preLights 5th Birthday webinar

preLights, our preprint highlighting service, is celebrating its 5th birthday this year. To mark the occasion, join us online on 14 March 2023 at 16:00 GMT for a discussion, led by four preLights alumni, on how to identify and navigate the challenges and opportunities while shaping your career as an early-career researcher.

Resources for early-career researchers

BiO and our publisher The Company of Biologists offer a number of practical ways to help you meet the unique needs and challenges you may encounter as an early-career researcher (ECR). Visit our dedicated ECR webpage to find out more.

Have a paper that has been reviewed elsewhere? BiO is pleased to consider such manuscripts for fast-tracked decision making . Send us your manuscript together with the full set of reviews and decision letters, and we will make an initial decision in one week (or less).

Future Leader Reviews

BiO’s Future Leader Reviews help early-career researchers:

Find out about eligibility and how to submit a proposal.

Social media

Other journals from The Company of Biologists

Affiliations

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Back to school

Inside a highly lucrative, ethically questionable essay-writing service

Killer Papers is a seven-figure academic “paper mill” business. But its products are just for inspiration, its founder insists.

Illustration of someone writing an essay for money

Kevin says he’s always been known as a good writer — a reputation that only blossomed in his Canadian high school.

“Word spread pretty quick around my 700-person school that I’m the best writer in the school,” he recalls.

The word spread to 15-year-old Kevin’s workplace, McDonald’s, where he flipped burgers. His teenage colleagues began joking with him, saying they’d pay $20 for him to write their papers. “It sounded funny at first,” Kevin says. “Then eventually, I was like: Twenty bucks? That’s more than I make in three hours .”

So he said yes.

Kevin (an alias) estimates he wrote around 50 papers for his high school classmates before moving on to college in the Northeast U.S. There, he worked at the university’s writing center and tutored fellow students in economics. After graduating, he got a job in finance and recommenced his paper-writing hustle, this time for college students.

“The stereotypical [client] is ‘ daddy’s credit card.’ But the vast majority of the people that use the service — and I’m talking 90 percent — have a job .”

In December 2016, he formalized his essay-writing services, launching an Instagram profile and website that he called Killer Papers . Kevin wrote the first hundred or so papers for free. “I did it just to get reviews and knowing that word would spread eventually,” he says. It worked.

By August 2017, he was charging $10 per page, and he’d earned enough to quit his full-time job, which he hated. “That first year, I made $50,000 from the business,” he says.

Killer Papers, based in Canada, is one of a number of so-called essay mills that write papers for clients in exchange for money. And as kids head back to school this fall, business in the industry is about to pick up. “A slow month is August, and a busy month is October,” Kevin says.

He now has around 60 writers who produce between 200 and a thousand papers a month, with prices ranging from $17.50 to $32 per page. Though Kevin is coy about sharing specific numbers, he will allow that the site’s revenue is in “the low seven figures.”

With paper mills, the quality of the end product varies wildly, depending on which service you use and what price you pay. The Killer Papers site emphasizes that its writers “are ALL American or Canadian college graduates,” in contrast to cheaper overseas competitors that employ writers for whom English is a second language.

But Killer Papers isn’t a paper mill, the company insists. “Killer Papers is a tutoring service,” reads a disclaimer on the site. “KillerPapers.org custom projects are not intended to be forwarded as finalized work for academic credit as they are only strictly meant to be used for research and study purposes. Killer Papers does not endorse or condone any type of plagiarism.”

Those who use Killer Paper’s services generally fall into two camps. “The stereotypical one is ‘daddy’s credit card,’” Kevin says. But that isn’t his core customer base. “The vast majority of the people that use the service — and I’m talking 90 percent — have a job. A lot of them are older than you might expect.” They’re people, Kevin says, whose busy lives mean they don’t have the proper amount of time to dedicate to their classwork.

Killer Papers user Deke (not his real name), a 24-year-old from Texas, was more of the stereotype than the average customer. He first heard about the service from a friend during his freshman year of college, where he was studying marketing. Deke estimates that he paid more than $1,000 for around 10 papers. “I know I spent a pretty penny, and that’s probably because I’m fortunate enough to have family support me on the financial side,” he says.

Deke says he used Killer Papers to help him with his heavy course load, which he took on so he could expedite his entry into the working world. He admits he never told his family where their hard-earned cash was going. “Even if I tried to explain to them, they’re immigrants and didn’t really go to school,” he says. “They wouldn’t really comprehend it.”

Deke claims he never submitted a paper that wasn’t his own work. “When I got the papers back, I tweaked them,” Deke says. “I worked on them.” He says that the essay-writing service helped him come up with the concepts and ideas for his essays. “That’s where I really needed help. When it came to opening up a Word document to type stuff, I just kind of blanked out. I’m like, Where do I start? ”

Deke got As for every essay he submitted except for one — the result of an uber-strict professor, he says. He graduated in 2020 and started working for an NFL team; he’s now employed in the oil and gas industry. “It helped me out pretty well in terms of getting me to where I am now,” he says. He adds that his fear of the blank page has disappeared, and he’s able to proficiently write reports for his job.

Ethical questions

Passing off someone else’s work as your own — plagiarism — isn’t illegal. But it is unethical.

Thomas Lancaster, senior teaching fellow in computing at Imperial College London, has been studying academic integrity, and essay mills’ role in destroying it, for more than 20 years. “Students see lots of temptation,” he says. “They see offers to do work for them, often disguised in the form of saying it’s ‘support’ or ‘help,’ not directly linking itself to being cheating. A lot of this is deceptive, and there’s a lot of blurring the lines between cheating and acceptability.”

Beyond the impact paper mills have on the value of academic degrees, Lancaster worries about the effect they have on students. “For students who think they’re just buying one piece of work, the problem is they then miss out on some of the core foundational knowledge we expect them to have,” he says. “When they go on to do a later assignment, they just struggle to do it.”

“We’re informing clients before they sign up that we’re not encouraging them to plagiarize anything.”

Those involved in essay-writing services deny that they’re damaging the integrity of the educational system. Courtney, who is in her 20s and lives on the East Coast, has been working with Killer Papers since 2018. She was an English and education undergrad at college and moved into teaching kids. “I felt very confident in my ability to proofread and edit and provide pretty much any writing service,” she says. “I just really enjoy writing.”

She signed up for Killer Papers, she says, because while she felt confident in her ability to craft an essay, she was conscious others might not. “I really liked the idea that it was providing support for students who might not have the same skill set that I had,” she says. “It felt nice to be able to help people.”

In March 2022, she left her job teaching and became a full-time essay writer for Killer Papers. In part, it was the money, but she also felt like the pandemic’s disruption of education meant she couldn’t make as much of an impact on kids’ learning as she wanted to. She tries to write between 15 and 30 assignments a week, depending on length. That allows her to match her $45,000 teacher’s salary, she says.

When she’s asked how she feels about the morality of what she does, Courtney demurs. “We’re informing clients before they sign up that we’re not encouraging them to plagiarize anything,” she says. “And we’re not encouraging them to submit any work.” Kevin, Killer Papers’ founder, makes similar points. “They’re assigned limited usage rights,” he says. “Basically, it’s for inspiration or study purposes. You’re not allowed to reuse it or anything like that.”

Kevin says that you wouldn’t hold a gun manufacturer liable for what someone does with a firearm so you shouldn’t hold Killer Papers liable for any students who decide to submit work the service produces as their own. “Everybody has free will,” he says.

When Input points out that many people do think gun manufacturers should be held liable, Kevin counters that you wouldn’t hold alcohol producers responsible for the actions of someone who’s drunk. When Input points out that cigarettes are similar — and that the tobacco industry has been held liable for its impact — and asks whether he really doesn’t believe kids aren’t passing off his essays as their own, Kevin asks to go off the record.

Courtney holds the line firm. “It’s fabulous to support students any way that they need, but in the same way that I couldn’t control my students in the classroom not submitting homework, I also can’t control what a student does with content that’s been submitted to them,” she says. “They’ve signed an agreement that they’ve read on the site, and they see we’re not condoning it in the slightest.”

“ People in general assume that I really don’t care about the product I’m producing, and I’m just doing as many as possible to make money. That’s just not accurate .”

That she’s part of an industry fueling cheating is the biggest misconception people have about her work, she says. “People in general assume that I really don’t care about the product I’m producing, and I’m just doing as many as possible to make money,” she says. “That’s just not accurate. I genuinely care about supporting students, and I want them to feel confident in the process.

“I encourage feedback,” she continues. “I encourage questions and critiques and everything, because not only does that help me to improve, but it makes them feel more comfortable that I’m not just some robot or some random individual with no other purpose than a paycheck.” Such communication happens via a chat function on the website.

Kevin’s vision for the future of Killer Papers is a confusing one. “I don’t see a world where three years from now we’re still selling custom essays, to be honest with you,” he says. Instead, he foresees the essay-writing service disappearing, to be replaced by bona fide tutoring services. Meaning Killer Papers may someday rebrand. “We need a name that transcends essay writing, to be something that can compete with [high-profile online tutoring service] Varsity Tutors,” he says.

Perhaps it’s a tacit admission that he wants to go totally legit. In a pre-interview email to Input , Kevin struck a more reflective tone regarding what he does for a living. “The reason I thought I picked this business initially is because I was good at writing, I liked writing, and people were willing to pay me to do it,” he shares.

“But the truth is, I picked it because I was desperate and knew I had what it took to make it work, at least enough to get me out of the corporate job and two-hour commute I hated,” Kevin continues. “If I hadn’t been so desperate, maybe I’d be changing the world right now.”

Data & Analytics

Gender & Diversity

Healthcare & Medicine

Librarian Community

Open Science

Research Intelligence

Research Community

Sustainability

Your Career

Paper mills: see the wood for the trees (Part 1)

Introducing a new series of articles on “paper mills”

You may have already come across the term and concept of “paper mills”. These are unscrupulous businesses that profit from would-be authors who pay for their services: preparing academic papers often based on fabricated or manipulated data and submitting them to journals. There is no overstating the seriousness of this practice: it goes against all the fundamental principles of ethical research and publication. But more than that, it is a systemic operation that risks undermining scientific progress which depends on building cumulative knowledge.

Whistle-blowers, including “super sleuth” Elisabeth Bik , have provided an incredible service to science by both detecting collections of papers that are suspected products of paper mills, and raising awareness of the paper mill phenomenon more generally. The results of their tremendous work have been well-documented, notably in retractions of large volumes of problematic content.

But it’s better of course to prevent publication of paper mill manuscripts in the first place. Elsevier’s journals employ tools and organize rigorous peer review to prevent many hundreds of papers each year from being published when there is any evidence of ethical issues. Detection of paper mills presents unique challenges, however.

In this series we introduce you to the current characteristics of paper mill products, the signs of potential paper mill submissions you should be looking out for as an editor, and how the publishing industry, Elsevier and our editors are addressing this challenge.

Where paper mills operate – an ever-changing landscape

As has been well-documented elsewhere , paper mills have been found clustered around:

There are risks to overemphasizing these characteristics.

First, false positives: ethical and high-quality research with these same attributes may be overlooked. Moreover, this could have long-term negative consequences for inclusion in research, for example, if individuals from certain types of institutes or countries were prevented from publishing.

Second, false negatives: it is quite possible that paper mills can, or have already at the time of writing, expanded into other research fields, researcher types and regions. Indeed during a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) discussion in September 2020, publishers noted paper mill activity had been observed in engineering, computer science, humanities and social science. As such, all editors should remain vigilant.

There are also limits to what can be done with this information: It cannot be used to flag content that may potentially stem from a paper mill because the volume of manuscripts and authors flagged based on these parameters would be too high to be helpful, and would lead to bias against the vast majority of submissions that are not from paper mills. However, it can help direct information and resources to editors of journals that are most likely to be affected, to help them be hyper-vigilant.

Our message to all editors is to be alert, not alarmed. Journals must strike a fine balance between preventing publication of paper mill papers, while ensuring that the vast majority of authors – who are honest and trustworthy – are not forced to jump through hoops or made to feel their integrity is brought into question.

So, how can you stay alert and spot possible paper mill submissions in your own journal? Stay tuned for part two: Ten signs you might be dealing with a “paper mill” product to find out...

Contributors

Katie Eve is a Communications Manager in Elsevier’s Global Publishing Development department. She joined Elsevier in 2010 and worked as a Publisher for journals across earth sciences and energy before moving into her communications position in 2017. She is currently supporting communications for Elsevier’s ethics, open science and inclusion & diversity programmes.

Healthcare stories

What makes a good dog-owner match? Here’s what science says

Katie Chan and Alison Bert, DMA

Research insight

Eight lessons from the webinar "article to art: creating visual abstracts"

Lipsa Panda

Practical guide

7 ways to avoid academic plagiarism

Michael Seadle, PhD

Elsevier.com visitor survey

We are always looking for ways to improve customer experience on Elsevier.com. We would like to ask you for a moment of your time to fill in a short questionnaire, at the end of your visit . If you decide to participate, a new browser tab will open so you can complete the survey after you have completed your visit to this website. Thanks in advance for your time.

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

Safeguarding peer review in the era of evolving paper mills

Author: Renee Hoch, Managing Editor of the PLOS Publication Ethics Team

Trust is at the heart of the peer review system – trust that authors conduct and report research with integrity, trust that editors and reviewers provide an objective, rigorous, and fair assessment when evaluating manuscripts, and trust that publishers maintain sufficient checks and balances to uphold high scientific and ethical standards and provide researchers equitable opportunities to publish their work.

Within this system, publishers work with the research community to provide a body of published work that has been vetted by peers and to which scientists and the general public can look for reliable information pushing the envelope of knowledge.

Unfortunately, trust is sometimes broken. This week, PLOS ONE retracted 20 articles as part of a large publication ethics case involving more than a hundred published articles. The evidence in this case suggests that a limited cohort of individuals may have taken steps to manipulate – or influence the outcome of – the publication process while serving as authors, reviewers, or Academic Editors.

Importantly, not every author, editor, or reviewer who contributed to the retracted articles was directly implicated in the concerns. This may be a case wherein upstanding researchers unknowingly became involved with a problematic service or collaborator(s) when preparing their manuscripts for publication.

Cross-publisher information sharing about specific cases and tactics can be invaluable in informing and expediting our collective efforts to safeguard peer review and ensure the reliability of the published research corpus. This post openly discusses aspects of this case in order to provide additional context for the retractions, contribute to the broader cross-publisher discussion, and raise awareness among researchers as to ‘services’ that should be avoided.

PLOS ONE’s current case

The information below does not include all of the concerns that contributed to the retraction decisions: we must hold some information as confidential due to the nature of the concerns and because we need to protect the efficacy of our integrity checks.

The 20 retractions PLOS ONE posted on August 3 are the first resolutions in a larger case for which most affected articles identified thus far report agricultural research. As is stated in the published retraction notices, the concerns pertain to competing interests, authorship, and peer review integrity. We identified both article-level and series-level concerns, although not every editorial concern applies to every article.

This case opened due to concerns about an author submitting an unusually high number of submissions in a short period. Thereafter, PLOS staff editors identified the larger series on the basis of shared authors and Academic Editors. Although the majority of authors appear only once within the series, a fraction of authors and Academic Editors appear repeatedly throughout the series. PubMed and Google Scholar searches revealed that several of these individuals have published at very high volumes (e.g. >100 articles) over the past two years, exceeding what would be expected even for very active researchers.

One major issue that emerged in our investigation involved competing interests in peer review. For many articles, we found that the handling Academic Editor had recently co-published work with one or more author(s). According to the PLOS Competing Interests policy, Academic Editors should recuse themselves from reviewing the submissions in such cases. Unfortunately, this evaded PLOS ONE ’s internal competing interest checks which are not currently equipped to identify co-publication histories.

Adding to the author/editor competing interest concerns, most Academic Editors involved in the case joined the PLOS ONE Editorial Board during the period when we were receiving these submissions, were requested by the corresponding authors, and have co-published – in some cases, extensively – with other Academic Editors and/or authors who appear repeatedly across the series of affected articles. We also identified other peer review integrity concerns which we cannot discuss publicly.

Whether the issues in this case arose due to honest errors (e.g. misunderstanding of PLOS policies) or intentional systematic manipulation of the publication process, the editorial outcome is the same: we concluded that peer review was compromised and that there were editorial policy compliance issues, necessitating retraction.

Avoiding bias in peer review by external Editorial Boards

PLOS is following up with the Academic Editors flagged in this PLOS ONE case. Looking more broadly, this case provides an example of a mechanism by which peer review involving external editorial boards can be exploited, whether by paper mills, organized networks, or individuals. We are applying our learnings from this case to inform outreach efforts and system-wide updates that can help us to mitigate this risk and help us identify similar cases prior to publication in the future.

Importantly, while we take the threat to peer review very seriously, the concerns in this case involved only a very miniscule fraction of the PLOS ONE Editorial Board. We do not have reason to question the integrity of the many due to concerning behavior by a limited few.

PLOS ONE’s Academic Editors play a pivotal role in the publication process: they are responsible for inviting reviewers and issuing editorial decisions on submitted articles. PLOS is incredibly grateful for the service and support of our Editorial Board members, and we have a dedicated team who carefully vets Academic Editor applications, provides training during the onboarding process, and supports Academic Editors throughout their tenure with PLOS. Additionally, journal staff support Academic Editors as needed for individual manuscripts and monitor for adherence to the journal’s peer review standards, publication criteria, and policies.

Returning to the issue of trust, PLOS relies on the integrity of our Academic Editors and authors in abiding by our editorial policies and Code of Conduct for Editorial Board members. We regularly receive indications that this trust is well-placed: we often receive inquiries and editors’ recusals pertaining to potential competing interests, and we have a strong history of relationships with and peer review by our valued Editorial Board members. That said, we also receive occasional questions about competing interests. In the wake of this case we are taking steps to increase our authors’ and Academic Editors’ understanding of our Competing Interests policy and how it should be applied during peer review.

We are also looking to enhance the stringency of our internal checks. PLOS ONE’s routine competing interest checks are currently limited; to apply a check based on co-publication histories at the scale of PLOS ONE , we would need an automated tool in place, ideally one that is integrated into our submission system. We are looking toward new tools that can help enhance and broaden our competing interests checks, as well as other mechanisms – e.g. workflow updates, audits, data-driven investigations of unusual activity – by which we can improve our detection of peer review integrity issues.

Closing remarks – a cross-publisher perspective

Systematic manipulation of the publication process appears to be on the rise, and the tactics used by bad actors continuously evolve. This presents an ever-present challenge to publishers seeking to detect such issues and ensure (or restore) the integrity of the published record.

Whereas several large-scale cases discussed previously centered on content issues – e.g. paper mill* cases involving duplicated images, text overlap, or other erroneous or problematic content – it appears that paper mills and other author service enterprises are now inserting themselves into peer review. This PLOS ONE case has highlighted potential vulnerabilities in the peer review system that may apply across the industry to journals who rely upon external editorial boards.

In addition to addressing issues internally, we need collaborative cross-industry initiatives and advances to help us – as a collective industry – combat systematic publication manipulation more effectively and efficiently. Some such projects led by STM and COPE are now underway, and we look forward to continued progress in this area.

*Paper mills are fee-for-service organizations that provide customers means of securing publications. These organizations (which may be formal companies, individuals, or networks of individuals) may, for example, sell fabricated manuscripts or data, authorship on articles reporting research to which the customer did not contribute, or writing and/or submission services to expedite publication of the customer’s own research by offering a guaranteed peer review outcome.

For more discussion of the PLOS ONE case, see this RetractionWatch article . Also, research integrity is the theme of this year’s Peer Review Week . PLOS will be hosting a webinar on the topic.

Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills

Rachel hackett.

1 The Company of Biologists, Bidder Building, Station Road, Cambridge CB24 9LF, UK

Steven Kelly

2 Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3RB, UK

Box 1. General examples of inappropriate figure manipulation

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is biolopen-9-056556-i1.jpg

The splicing of multiple images to suggest they come from a single micrograph or gel is not allowed.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is biolopen-9-056556-i2.jpg

BiO publishes peer-reviewed original research in all areas of the biological and biomedical sciences. It is essential that the work addresses a clearly stated, non-trivial, biological hypothesis. It must, in the opinion of the Editor, enhance the literature and be of use to the community. One charge levelled at Open Access journals is that they are more likely to accept submissions regardless of the quality of the research, as that it how they become profitable. Unfortunately, there are numerous so-called predatory journals that do just that. However, the current rejection rate – 67% of articles submitted to BiO are rejected – should absolve BiO of any accusations of predatory practices. BiO and its research-active academic Editors are firmly focused on providing a service to the community by publishing rigorously conducted research. BiO also supports early-career researchers by publishing its hugely popular First Person interviews alongside research articles. BiO has created career development opportunities through our Meeting Reviews and Future Leader Reviews programme. BiO and The Company of Biologists will together continue to strive to ensure that the profits from the hard work of scientists inspire future scientific discovery and help develop the next generation of researchers.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Illustration by Ana Kova

When Laura Fisher noticed striking similarities between research papers submitted to RSC Advances , she grew suspicious. None of the papers had authors or institutions in common, but their charts and titles looked alarmingly similar, says Fisher, the executive editor at the journal. “I was determined to try to get to the bottom of what was going on.”

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 per month

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

$199.00 per year

only $3.90 per issue

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 591 , 516-519 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00733-5

Behl, C. J. Cell. Biochem. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.29906 (2021).

Article Google Scholar

Frederickson, R. M. & Herzog, R. W. Mol. Ther . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2021.02.011 (2021).

Seifert, R. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol. 394 , 431–436 (2021).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Byrne, J. A. & Christopher, J. FEBS Lett. 594 , 583–589 (2020).

Christopher, J. FEBS Lett. 592 , 3027–3029 (2018).

Qi, C., Zhang, J. & Luo, P. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.24.395319 (2020).

Download references

Supplementary Information

Nature analysis of papers alleged to come from paper mills

China bans cash rewards for publishing papers

Peer review

Will the world ever see another IPCC-style body?

Editorial 01 MAR 23

Brexit deal paves way for UK to rejoin Horizon Europe research programme

News 01 MAR 23

Ukraine: don’t relax scientific sanctions against Russia

Correspondence 28 FEB 23

Bright pink ocean and rare wildflower super bloom — February’s best science images

OpenAI — explain why some countries are excluded from ChatGPT

Quick uptake of ChatGPT, and more — this week’s best science graphics

News 28 FEB 23

‘Golden tickets’ on the cards for NSF grant reviewers

Nature Index 24 FEB 23

Nature welcomes Registered Reports

Editorial 22 FEB 23

Stop the peer-review treadmill. I want to get off

Career Feature 13 FEB 23

Research Scientist - Chemistry Research & Innovation

MRC National Institute for Medical Research

Harwell Campus, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom

POST-DOC POSITIONS IN THE FIELD OF “Automated Miniaturized Chemistry” supervised by Prof. Alexander Dömling

Palacky University (PU)

Olomouc, Czech Republic

Ph.D. POSITIONS IN THE FIELD OF “Automated miniaturized chemistry” supervised by Prof. Alexander Dömling

Czech advanced technology and research institute opens a senior researcher position in the field of “automated miniaturized chemistry” supervised by prof. alexander dömling.

Quick links

IMAGES

008 Ethics Essay Examples Ofs Philosop Small Business Example Research ~ Thatsnotus
Ethical Paper
Recycled Ethical Paper
Brief History of Paper Mills
About Us
The History and Future of Paper Mills

VIDEO

Maintenance Manager Mr Nadeem Danial / Century Paper & Board Mills Ltd
India Map: Paper Mills in India
Last Of Historic Paper Mills To Close
Thirrutu Kalyanam Biryani pola Iruku🤩
FOIP Training for Academic Integrity
Mr. Nadeem Ullah Sheikh, General Manager

COMMENTS

What Is Paper Used For?
Paper is used to make books, magazines and newspapers as well as paper money and photographic paper. It’s used to make writing paper, toys, boxes, wrapping paper, glassine, paper napkins, toilet paper, paper towels, facial tissue and paper ...
How to Use a Milling Machine
If you work with metal or wood, chances are you have a use for a milling machine. These mechanical tools are used in metal-working and woodworking, and some machines can be quite high-tech to produce intricate results.
What Are the Properties of Paper?
Properties of paper include the thickness, weight, texture, folding endurance, strength and size of the paper. Some grades of paper tear easily, while others resist tearing. The moisture retention capacity is another important property of p...
Paper Mills—The Dark Side of the Academic Publishing Industry
Paper mills are a type of industrial fraud, which is prevalent in the publishing sector. Paper mills are profit-oriented, unofficial and
Potential paper mills
Paper mills are often detected after a pattern of submission behaviour across several submissions and journals becomes apparent. There is wide
Paper Mills- A Rising Concern in the Academic Community
Paper Mill is a potentially illegal organization that produces and sells fraudulent scientific manuscripts written by ghostwriters on demand!
Ethical Pulp & Paper Ltd, Head Office Bangladesh, Dhaka
Producers of pulp, mechanical pulp, paper and board • Ethical Pulp & Paper Ltd, Head Office • Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Research paper mill
In some cases, paper mills are sophisticated operations that sell authorship positions on legitimate research, but in many cases the papers contain fraudulent
Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills
In 2013, a journalist working for the journal Science launched a 'sting' operation to highlight perceived flaws in the peer-review processes
Inside a highly lucrative, ethically questionable essay-writing service
Killer Papers is a seven-figure academic "paper mill" business. But its products are just for inspiration, its founder insists.
Paper mills: see the wood for the trees (Part 1)
Indeed during a Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) discussion in September 2020, publishers noted paper mill activity had been observed
Safeguarding peer review in the era of evolving paper mills
Author: Renee Hoch, Managing Editor of the PLOS Publication Ethics Team. Trust is at the heart of the peer review system – trust that
Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills
Publishing ethics in the era of paper mills ... The vast majority of ethical scientific publishers are grappling with this problem.
The fight against fake-paper factories that churn out sham science
A Nature analysis examines the 'paper mill' problem — and how ... the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), a publisher-advisory body in