Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past - the case of the journal Bioengineered
Overview
Paper Summary
This study examined articles published in the journal "Bioengineered" from 2010-2023 and found that 25.7% of the articles contained inappropriate image duplication/manipulation or had been retracted. The study focused on articles related to rodent studies and used a combination of image analysis software and manual review to identify issues. Although the study successfully identified a significant number of problematic articles, the actual number might be higher due to limited sample selection and types of problems considered.
Explain Like I'm Five
A study checked for problematic articles in a scientific journal and found a lot. This means people might be reading and trusting bad science.
Possible Conflicts of Interest
All authors have ongoing collaborations with ImageTwin and have been given free access in return. David Bimler and Elisabeth M. Bik receive donations through Patreon to support their work. Elisabeth M. Bik receives speaker fees and travel reimbursement for talks and workshops and consults for research institutions, funders, and publishers.
Identified Limitations
Rating Explanation
This study provides valuable insight into the extent of problematic articles within a scientific journal. The methodology used was reasonable and included image analysis software and manual review. Although there are limitations due to sample selection and types of problems considered, the overall findings are important. The conflict of interest statement raises some concerns about potential bias, but it is not substantial enough to discredit the research.
Good to know
This is the Starter analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.
Explore Pro →