The research business and the phenomenon of "paper mills"

On the same topic:

There's a silent crisis in the world of science. It's not a virus, nor a conflict between academic theories: the enemy today is publications themselves. It's called the "paper mill"—or "cartiere" in Italian—and it identifies a disturbing and ever-growing phenomenon: the mass production and commission of false, unsubstantiated, unverified, and artfully constructed scientific articles for the sole purpose of boosting careers, obtaining funding, or simply "inflation" of academic resumes . A New York Times investigation recently returned to investigate this opaque and hidden world, but the problem is ancient, widespread, and unfortunately destined to worsen.

The first systematic reports of the paper mill phenomenon concerned China, considered by many analysts to be the true epicenter of the proliferation of these fraudulent mechanisms. In particular, it has been documented how some Chinese university hospitals and research institutes have for years used paid scientific writing services to secure publications in indexed journals for their doctors and researchers, often a key requirement for career advancement or promotion. The model has since evolved into a veritable parallel market, capable of producing tailor-made articles, complete with fictitious data, manipulated images, and artfully constructed citations .

Read also:

Making the phenomenon even more complex is the high incidence of self-citations within the Chinese academic system: according to some analyses, over 60 percent of citations to works published in China come from Chinese researchers themselves. This figure contributes to distorting China's true scientific influence and suggests the existence of structured practices such as citation stacking, or mutual citations planned to inflate academic impact . In this context, China has led the way, exporting a model that is now being replicated—with variations—in other countries.

After China and the United States, Italy ranks third globally for citation stacking. A scientific study published in Plos One analyzed this practice among Italian researchers. It's important to note that the Italian numbers are significantly lower than the Chinese ones. However, considering the current state of research in Italy—a country with few graduates, few researchers, and little funding for the sector—the high number of publications that has propelled Italy to the top of the world rankings is striking. These numbers, however, may raise some concerns. Antonio Cassone , microbiologist and former director of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, confirmed these doubts to Il Foglio: "Italian researchers are certainly very productive, but the fact that our country has climbed so high in the world rankings in recent years may cast some doubt on the scientific validity of some of their work." Cassone, author of a recent essay on the topic, adds: "We're no longer talking about occasional errors or poor-quality research. We're dealing with a parallel system, an organized market, that exploits the need to publish to advance one's career."

According to Cassone, the driving force behind this phenomenon is the unsustainable pressure placed on researchers. In academia, publishing is a necessity, regardless of content—the only thing that truly matters is that the author's name appears in black and white in a journal, preferably an international one. Cassone cites a telling figure that conveys the enormity of the phenomenon: in the last year, approximately 2.5 million scientific articles were published worldwide . This number raises a crucial question: how much of this production represents true science, verifiable, rigorous, and useful for progress? It's a question we can no longer ignore, because the proportion of low-quality or entirely fictitious works is growing exponentially.

Giuseppe Novelli, a geneticist and former rector of the University of Tor Vergata in Rome, also denounces the phenomenon: "We're not simply talking about poorly written articles. The crux of the matter is that many of these studies are generated, or heavily manipulated, with the help of artificial intelligence." Novelli tells Il Foglio that AI, while it offers powerful tools for research, can pose a risk if used without adequate critical scrutiny. AI can contribute to the spread of misinformation, construct meaningless sentences, and generate incorrect or inappropriate citations. A common example: reading sentences that cite articles as "recently published," only to discover that the studies in question are six or even seven years old. For Novelli, "this is a typical error of artificial intelligence: it lacks critical thinking, doesn't understand temporal context, and in many cases only has access to the abstracts of certain research studies, often only accessible via paid subscription."

But the problem doesn't end with the improper use of AI. Novelli also highlights the collapse in the quality of peer review, the process that should guarantee the reliability of scientific articles. Too many journals, too many articles to evaluate, and too few competent reviewers willing to take the necessary time. The result is that inconsistent, and even fraudulent, studies manage to pass editorial scrutiny and be published in journals using this business model. It's not uncommon for an article to be published to cost between 3,000 and 4,000 euros, while some "publishing services," promising turnkey publication, offer complete packages that can cost as much as 30,000 euros . A multi-million dollar market that, rather than promoting scientific rigor, aims for profit.

This surge in suspicious publications is driven by a deeply flawed incentive system. Giuseppe Traversa, an epidemiologist and former researcher at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità, also supports this claim. Traversa explains to Il Foglio that today, in research, merit is judged primarily based on the number of articles published and citations received. This system clearly rewards quantity, not quality. If 100 publications—even modest ones—are enough to win a competition or secure funding, the temptation to "inflate" one's profile becomes overwhelming . The consequences are dire and multiple. First, public funds—already scarce—risk being diverted to low-value projects, depriving those who truly conduct quality research. But the most profound damage lies in the loss of trust. When even those observing science from the outside begin to suspect that behind certain publications lies a vacuum—or worse, deliberate fraud—the entire system falters. We saw this clearly during the pandemic, when fake news and unverified studies helped sow confusion and mistrust.

According to Cassone, to reestablish credibility, a cultural revolution is needed: we must return to rewarding the quality of research, not the quantity of publications. We can no longer judge a researcher solely by the journal in which they publish; we must actually read what they write, understand its content, and evaluate their actual contribution. Novelli also insists on more rigorous controls: an effective editorial pre-check is needed, as well as greater multidisciplinary reviewing. Finally, Traversa highlights the urgent need to reform the incentive system: we must evaluate the real value of research, not the abstract numbers of publications. The three experts agree that, for now, the Italian system is less exposed than in other countries, where academic careers are closely tied to editorial performance. But this doesn't mean we're immune. Gross errors, superficiality, misrepresentations, and subtle manipulations are already present in the Italian scientific landscape . And the ease with which it's now possible to purchase a ready-to-publish study should be a warning to institutions and academic communities.

Science is by its very nature a self-correcting process, and over time, fraud tends to surface. This is why oversight must be preventative, not just subsequent: greater vigilance, greater rigor, and transparency are needed at every stage of the publication process. Ultimately, Cassone concludes, "this story began with a small grain of sand." But if we don't pay due attention, that grain risks becoming an avalanche capable of overwhelming everything, even the faith we've placed for centuries in the power of reason.

More on these topics: