For a long time, blogger and scientist Derek Lowe has been putting out interesting essays. For several years, he's been hosted by SCIENCE.
Here's one. His May 21 blog at "In the Pipeline" (at SCIENCE) looks into the cash-for-papers industry. It's not new, but it's probably accelerated by AI. Derek gives a lengthy summary at his blog, and for more details, refers readers to an earlier online article by Leonid Schneider at a website called, "For Better Science."
Find Derek Lowe here:
https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/inside-scientific-paper-mill
He's summarizing from Leonid Schneider [46pp]:
https://forbetterscience.com/2025/05/19/a-sting-inside-a-papermill/
By sides the summary by Lowe and the long-format article by Schneider, see also March 2025 book, Columbia University Press, by Swiss scientist Csaba Szabo, "Unreliable: Bias, Fraud and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research."
Regarding paper mills, quoting from Lowe:
Over at For Better Science, Leonid Schneider has a fascinating look into the papers-for-cash schemes that have been going on for years now in the scientific literature. A pharmacology professor at Univ. Fribourg in Switzerland, Csaba Szabo, was contacted by one of these shady outfits with an offer, or rather, a whole selection of offers. "Ms. Kristen" from the "Alliance Academy of Science" (whatever the hell that is) wrote Prof. Szabo in2023 with an "invitation for potential cooperation", and he was able to [include that in his new book.]
...he needed more clarification ... and what emerged was a detailed schedule of potential payouts that depended on the amount of "cooperation" and the impact factors of the journals where the resulting articles would appear, as well as the speed of acceptance at the journals themselves. It was a long list of variations on the themes of ghostwriting, authorship manipulation, and outright bribery to get things published in actual journals. These things, depressingly, have been going on for a long time now...
###
AI CORNER
Here's a summary of the 46-page Schneider article via Chat GPT.
###
Here is a concise summary you can adapt for your blog, highlighting Leonid Schneider's and Csaba Szabo’s investigation into papermills, and how Szabo’s sting operation helped expose their mechanics:
Inside the Academic Papermill:
Schneider and Szabo Unmask the Market for Fraudulent Science
In a riveting exposé on For Better Science, investigative journalist Leonid Schneider and pharmacologist Csaba Szabo team up to illuminate the inner workings of academic papermills — shadowy networks that churn out fake scientific publications for a price.
Szabo, a senior scientist at the University of Fribourg, was approached by a Chinese papermill offering cash (up to $5000) for either ghostwriting papers or using his editorial influence to secure their publication. Instead of complying, he collaborated with Schneider to stage a sting operation — posing as a willing participant to gather inside information.
Over a 72-hour WhatsApp exchange with contacts named “Julia” and “Ariana,” Szabo was offered various shady "cooperation modes": he could ghostwrite papers, sell authorship slots, or manipulate journal acceptances as an editor. He was even sent a complete manuscript — later traced to authors with a history of suspicious publications and PubPeer complaints. The paper was typical of papermill output: scientifically superficial, full of recycled tropes (like lncRNA in cancer), and padded with suspect references.
The investigation revealed that the Anzen Academy of Science, which contacted Szabo, is not a real entity. Payments were offered via crypto and obscure platforms like Perfect Money, and names of supposed collaborators were withheld — classic red flags of an international fraud scheme.
Schneider's detailed analysis and Szabo’s undercover work expose a billion-dollar industry undermining scientific integrity. Their findings confirm that papermills exploit weak editorial systems, hijack peer review (often via fake email accounts), and profit from academia’s publish-or-perish culture. This sting also complements Szabo’s broader critique in his recent book, Unreliable, which examines bias and fraud in biomedical research.
