Skip to main content
Toxicology Research logoLink to Toxicology Research
editorial
. 2021 Sep 29;10(5):961. doi: 10.1093/toxres/tfab090

Editorial: preventing the publication of falsified research

PMCID: PMC8557662  PMID: 34733480

The last 12 months have been incredibly challenging on many fronts, as many of us experienced the sudden switch to virtual working, juggling caring and teaching responsibilities, as well as the uncertainty of what the future will hold. Despite these challenges, Toxicology Research are committed to upholding high standards of scientific research that our readers and authors have come to expect. The Journal has been made aware recently of the unethical publishing practice of ‘paper mills’ and we have been working to develop policies to counteract the potential damage this phenomenon could pose to the validity of the scientific record.

A paper mill is an organization allegedly offering a range of paid services, from publishable research data through to fully prepared (and in some cases already accepted) manuscripts [1]. Individually, these falsified manuscripts are hard to distinguish from legitimate research papers. However, when examined on a larger scale, similarities in the article and title structure, image choices, and experimental approaches start to become clearer. At this stage, the exact number of paper mill-generated manuscripts in circulation is unknown, but in the last 12 months there have been several instances of publishers or journals reporting on their own investigations into this matter, including the Royal Society of Chemistry [2] and the Naunyn-Schniedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology [3].

Following our own investigations into several papers flagged as potentially the result of falsified research, we are putting in place strict measures to prevent any such papers proceeding through the review process in future. We will be requestingx that corresponding authors have a verifiable institutional or industry contact email address and requiring author contribution statements in all research manuscripts. All authors should also be prepared to provide original source data in a clear and readable format if they are asked to do so by the Associate Editors.

I would also like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to our community of editors, reviewers, authors, and readers for their ongoing support of Toxicology Research throughout the last 18 months. The journal has increased its impact factor and we are pleased to see an increase in submissions to the Journal. We are extremely grateful for your dedication and support.

References

  • 1.Byrne  J.A., Christopher  J., Digital magic, or the dark arts of the 21st century – how can journals and peer reviewers detect manuscripts and publications from paper mills?  FEBS Lett  2020, 594, 583–589. ( 10.1002/1873-3468.13747). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.RSC Advances retractions , 20 January 2021, https://www.rsc.org/news-events/articles/2021/jan/paper-mill-response/. (29 April 2021, date last accessed).
  • 3.Siefert, R., How Naunyn-Schmiedeberg’s Archives of Pharmacology deals with fraudulent papers from paper mills, Naunyn Schmiedeberg's Arch Pharmacol. 2021, 394, 431–436. ( 10.1007/s00210-021-02056-8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Toxicology Research are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES