Tackling paper mills requires us to prevent future contamination and clean up the past - the case of the journal Bioengineered

★

☆

SHARE

Overview

Paper Summary

Conflicts of Interest

Identified Weaknesses

Rating Explanation

Good to know

Topic Hierarchy

File Information

Paper Summary

Paperzilla title

One in Four Articles in "Bioengineered" Journal Found Problematic: Are We Reading Bad Science?

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from 2010-2023 and found that 25.7% of the articles contained inappropriate image duplication/manipulation or had been retracted.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.

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 Weaknesses

Sampling Bias

The study only looked at a subset of the journal's publications, focusing only on articles about studies on rodents. Problematic articles may have been published in other areas of the journal, and other types of problems may exist in the articles that were checked that were not identified.

Potential for unidentified problematic articles

The authors mention that other articles contain similar characteristics, suggesting common authorship by paper mills. They acknowledge that other problematic articles may exist which did not meet their criteria and thus may have been missed in the study.

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 our free standard analysis. Paperzilla Pro fact-checks every citation, researches author backgrounds and funding sources, and uses advanced AI reasoning for more thorough insights.

Explore Pro →