A Third Of Scientific Papers May Be Fraudulent

Please Share This Story!
The best known secret in the scientific publishing world is that a large number of papers are fraudulent. There are many reasons for this, from conflicts of interest to professional jealousy to climbing the ladder to securing more grants. Whatever the reason, screening tools to detect fraud are pitifully scarce. ⁃ TN Editor

Around a third of studies published in neuroscience journals, and about 24% in medical journals, are “made up or plagiarized,” according to a new paper.

The research, referred to as a preprint — meaning it has not yet been peer-reviewed — looked at 5,000 published papers, as first reported by Science.

Using a simple, automated detection system the researchers looked for two telltale signs: Whether an author was registered with a personal, rather than institutional, email address, and if the author listed their affiliation as a hospital. The papers flagged as potentially fake were then checked by humans. About 1,500 of the papers were likely fraudulent, the researchers concluded.

Academic careers are “publish or perish”: If scientists don’t publish lots of widely cited studies, they won’t progress. They’re therefore incentivized to get their names on as many published papers as possible, and to make sure those studies get citations, not to find true facts.

The paper mill industry has arisen as a result of that incentive. But it’s just one way in which academics can boost their record. Some scientists repeatedly cite their own earlier papers, even if they have no relevance. There are also “citation rings” of scientists who all agree to cite each other’s papers, again regardless of relevance, and “undeserved authorship” in which scientists get their names on papers they didn’t write, either by paying for it or by mutual agreement. All these practices artificially boost the scientists’ citation statistics.

Everyone in science knows about these problems. But surprisingly few people do anything about it.

The microbiologist Elisabeth Bik has an extraordinary ability to spot duplicated or faked images in scientific journals: She has spotted hundreds over the years. But she told Nature that even five years after she’d reported the fakes to the journals, most of them had not been dealt with.

The Oxford psychologist Dorothy Bishop says this matches her own experience: “If one points out academic malpractice to publishers or institutions, there is often no reply.”

There are plenty of other issues with scientific research and publishing. Journals take scientists’ work for free or even charge to publish it, then charge them again for access.

Editors at one journal walked out recently over “unethical” publishing fees. And the demand for “positive” results incentivizes scientists to hack the data up until they find something. Those are deep systemic problems within science.

But outright fraud, you’d think, should be easy to fix if detected. And yet the scientific community often ignores it, undermining the entirety of science: If a large percentage of studies are fake, how can we trust the progress science does make?

Greater transparency, including full publication of data and code as standard for all papers, would be a start, but ultimately the incentive structure of science has to change.

Read full story here…

About the Editor

Patrick Wood
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

More like, 2/3’s ARE FRAUDULENT! Would not be shocked if it was up to 3/4’s.


This is true with US Patents as well. Dr David Martin was hired by the govt to use his computer program to detect duplicates of patents and found that at least 30% were illegitimate or identical to previous ones. 23 years ago he accidently discovered the patents that Fauci and fellow scientists like Ralph Baric,NIAID, CDC,and the US military were registering patents for coronaviruses, vaccines and ways to manipulate them BEFORE they were released on the public. Research and discoveries paid for with tax dollars that these agencies now get royalties on and can use as weapons.

[…] Read More: A Third Of Scientific Papers May Be Fraudulent […]

[…] Read More: A Third Of Scientific Papers May Be Fraudulent […]

Raymond J

Most of the ones that are not fraudulent are trivial.

[…] A Third Of Scientific Papers May Be Fraudulent […]


You don’t say. Lies are the present foundation of the house of cards known as the human race. Seemingly the only solution worth trying is to spew more lies.


The plagiarism and fabrication issue in neuroscience is a small part of the serious overall problem of false scientific research including pseudoscientific claims in many different fields: https://mikestone.substack.com/p/trust-the-science “…Research biases, selective publications, financial conflicts of interests, journal bribery, inappropriate study designs, faulty interpretations, rigged outcomes, etc. have all been a staple of scientific research throughout the decades. Various people have rung the alarm bells over the last few decades yet little to no action has been taken by those in a position to do something about it. False findings have been built upon and compounded throughout the research over the… Read more »

Last edited 4 months ago by Brian

(CONT.) “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, DSc (Stanford): https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 “…As shown, the majority of modern biomedical research is operating in areas with very low pre- and post-study probability for true findings…” Former New England Journal of Medicine Chief Editor Marcia Angell, M.D.: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ “…It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines….I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor…” Lancet… Read more »