paper mill research

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, digital standard + weekend, digital premium + weekend.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend newspaper delivered Saturday plus standard digital access
• FT Weekend Print edition
• FT Weekend Digital edition
• FT Weekend newspaper delivered Saturday plus complete digital access
• Everything in Preimum Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print
• Everything in Premium Digital

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Fake academic papers are on the rise: why they’re a danger and how to stop them

Professor of Methodology and Integrity, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam

Disclosure statement

Lex Bouter is the founding chair of the World Conferences on Research Integrity Foundation and co-chair of the 8th WCRI in Athens, 2-5 June 2024.

View all partners

In the 1800s, British colonists in India set about trying to reduce the cobra population, which was making life and trade very difficult in Delhi. They began to pay a bounty for dead cobras. The strategy very quickly resulted in the widespread breeding of cobras for cash .

This danger of unintended consequences is sometimes referred to as the “ cobra effect ”. It can also be well summed up by Goodhardt’s Law , named after British economist Charles Goodhart. He stated that, when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

The cobra effect has taken root in the world of research. The “publish or perish” culture, which values publications and citations above all, has resulted in its own myriad of “cobra breeding programmes”. That includes the widespread practice of questionable research practices, like playing up the impact of research findings to make work more attractive to publishers.

It’s also led to the rise of paper mills, criminal organisations that sell academic authorship. A report on the subject describes paper mills as (the)

process by which manufactured manuscripts are submitted to a journal for a fee on behalf of researchers with the purpose of providing an easy publication for them, or to offer authorship for sale.

These fake papers have serious consequences for research and its impact on society. Not all fake papers are retracted. And even those that are often still make their way into systematic literature reviews which are, in turn, used to draw up policy guidelines, clinical guidelines, and funding agendas.

How paper mills work

Paper mills rely on the desperation of researchers — often young, often overworked, often on the peripheries of academia struggling to overcome the high obstacles to entry — to fuel their business model.

They are frighteningly successful. The website of one such company based in Latvia advertises the publication of more than 12,650 articles since its launch in 2012. In an analysis of just two journals jointly conducted by the Committee on Publications Ethics and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, more than half of the 3440 article submissions over a two-year period were found to be fake.

It is estimated that all journals, irrespective of discipline, experience a steeply rising number of fake paper submissions. Currently the rate is about 2%. That may sound small. But, given the large and growing amount of scholarly publications it means that a lot of fake papers are published. Each of these can seriously damage patients, society or nature when applied in practice.

The fight against fake papers

Many individuals and organisations are fighting back against paper mills.

The scientific community is lucky enough to have several “fake paper detectives” who volunteer their time to root out fake papers from the literature. Elizabeth Bik , for instance, is a Dutch microbiologist turned science integrity consultant. She dedicates much of her time to searching the biomedical literature for manipulated photographic images or plagiarised text. There are others doing this work , too.

Organisations such as PubPeer and Retraction Watch also play vital roles in flagging fake papers and pressuring publishers to retract them.

These and other initiatives, like the STM Integrity Hub and United2Act , in which publishers collaborate with other stakeholders, are trying to make a difference.

But this is a deeply ingrained problem. The use of generative artificial intelligence like ChatGPT will help the detectives – but will also likely result in more fake papers which are now more easy to produce and more difficult or even impossible to detect.

Stop paying for dead cobras

They key to changing this culture is a switch in researcher assessment.

Researchers must be acknowledged and rewarded for responsible research practices: a focus on transparency and accountability, high quality teaching, good supervision, and excellent peer review. This will extend the scope of activities that yield “career points” and shift the emphasis of assessment from quantity to quality.

Fortunately, several initiatives and strategies already exist to focus on a balanced set of performance indicators that matter. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , established in 2012, calls on the research community to recognise and reward various research outputs, beyond just publication. The Hong Kong Principles , formulated and endorsed at the 6th World Conference in Research Integrity in 2019, encourage research evaluations that incentivise responsible research practices while minimise perverse incentives that drive practices like purchasing authorship or falsifying data.

These issues, as well as others related to protecting the integrity of research and building trust in it, will also be discussed during the 8th World Conference on Research Integrity in Athens, Greece in June this year.

Practices under the umbrella of “ Open Science ” will be pivotal to making the research process more transparent and researchers more accountable. Open Science is the umbrella term for a movement consisting of initiatives to make scholarly research more transparent and equitable, ranging from open access publication to citizen science.

Open Methods, for example, involves the pre-registration of a study design’s essential features before its start. A registered report containing the introduction and methods section is submitted to a journal before data collection starts. It is subsequently accepted or rejected based on the relevance of the research, as well as the methodology’s strength.

The added benefit of a registered report is that reviewer feedback on the methodology can still change the study methods, as the data collection hasn’t started. Research can then begin without pressure to achieve positive results, removing the incentive to tweak or falsify data.

Peer review

Peer reviewers are an important line of defence against the publication of fatally flawed or fake papers. In this system, quality assurance of a paper is done on a completely voluntary and often anonymous basis by an expert in the relevant field or subject.

However, the person doing the review work receives no credit or reward. It’s crucial that this sort of “invisible” work in academia be recognised, celebrated and included among the criteria for promotion. This can contribute substantially to detecting questionable research practices (or worse) before publication.

It will incentivise good peer review, so fewer suspect articles pass through the process, and it will also open more paths to success in academia – thus breaking up the toxic publish-or-perish culture.

This article is based on a presentation given by the lead author at Stellenbosch University, South Africa on 12 February 2024. Natalie Simon, a communications consultant specialising in research who is part of the communications team for the 8th World Conference on Research Integrity and is also currently completing an MPhil in Science and Technology Studies at Stellenbosch University, co-authored this article.

• Academic journals
• Research integrity
• Academic research
• Publish or perish
• Fake journals
• Paper mills
• Open Science movement

Psychiatrist - Multiple Opportunities

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy . By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

Dealing with the perils of "paper mills"

How the Bioengineered journal fights fake science

Insights > Research impact > Dealing with the perils of "paper mills"

In academic publishing, a "paper mill" is a commercial enterprise that produces fraudulent manuscripts that resemble genuine scholarly articles.

Paper mills are a considerable threat to academia's research integrity. The fake manuscripts they submit to journals can spread misinformation, put unwanted pressure on editors and peer reviewers, and take focus away from legitimate research.

Paper mills pose a huge challenge for publishers and take up an enormous amount of time and resources.

Paper mills target

The Bioengineered journal was a recent target of paper mills. Launched in 2010, Bioengineered is currently in its 14th volume.

It covers bioengineering and biotechnology with a focus on fundamental and advanced sciences.

How Bioengineered combats paper mills

We recently interviewed Dr. Evgeniya Dimova ( Bioengineered Executive Editor) and Todd Hummel (Taylor & Francis Global Publishing Director, STM).

Our interview looks at the journal's quick response to the paper mill threat and the extensive safeguards the journal and Taylor & Francis put in place to protect against future paper mill activity.

Dr. Evgeniya Dimova, Bioengineered  Executive Editor

Todd Hummel, Taylor & Francis Global Publishing Director, STM

How were Taylor & Francis and Bioengineered alerted to the paper mill activity?

Todd: In early 2021, the Taylor & Francis team became concerned about submission trends in Bioengineered owing to a spike in submissions, alongside multiple requests for authorship changes to several articles which were under submission or had already been accepted.

Our previous experience on other journals that had been targeted by paper mills signaled the need for a thorough investigation. 

We were operating the journal along with our editorial team in good faith, evaluating each manuscript in a fair manner and not making presumptions about manuscripts being fabricated.

Ultimately, in trying to continue to provide the high-quality service the journal had always provided to legitimate authors, the journal was caught between serving the legitimate authors and correctly rejecting the paper mill authors.

It was determined that all content, at all stages, would need to be thoroughly assessed to ensure we could stand behind the publications.

It was a challenging job to evaluate hundreds of individual papers which are designed to look legitimate, and we wanted to ensure rigorous checks were complete before beginning the retraction process. Unfortunately, once a paper mill is successful in publishing a paper, the paper mill will persistently target the journal with submissions on similar topics, and the sheer volume of content is overwhelming for a small editorial team to handle.

Once aware of being a target of paper mills, what actions did Taylor & Francis and Bioengineered take to combat this activity?

Todd: The journal has been through several stages in responding to the papermill issue. Taylor & Francis and Bioengineered have responded swiftly and made huge investments in strengthening processes and checks, adding resources and staff to the investigation and prevention efforts as quickly as possible.

In the first stage, enhanced technical checks at submission were introduced and the journal policies were modified to request that authors submit the raw data associated with submitted research. This allowed Taylor & Francis to flag any potential issues to the editorial team to help them identify and, if appropriate, desk reject problematic submissions.

Additionally, the Reviewer Selection Team, responsible for selecting and inviting appropriate and vetted reviewers on behalf of the Editors, carried out an assessment before starting to invite reviewers. We also implemented an end-to-end process for dealing with authorship list change requests, so that any concerning signals could be spotted quickly. If issues were found, these were again flagged to the editorial team, thus providing an additional opportunity to desk reject problematic submissions. 

Additionally, the Taylor & Francis Publishing, Ethics, and Integrity Team held training for the deputy editors on how to spot fraudulent submissions once the papermill situation came to light. And Taylor & Francis and the Executive Editor have been in ongoing communication.

The most recent efforts have been focused around establishing the Desk Assessment Team, a trained Taylor & Francis team that reviews all submitted manuscripts for adherence to ethical and journal policies, conducting several integrity checks on the content of each manuscript before it progresses to peer review. This service is extremely rigorous, but Taylor & Francis is committed and has added the service on other journals where the subject matter is deemed high-risk and susceptible to paper mill activity.

The journal also instituted a check where a member of the Taylor & Francis Publishing Ethics and Integrity Team checked each accepted manuscript before it progressed to production.

Has Bioengineered now overcome the paper mill activity?

Todd: Yes. The historical issues are under control and our experience on Bioengineered means we would be able to respond faster if a similar spike in submission numbers were seen.

We now have robust checks in place, supported by dedicated experts, to handle any malicious submissions, and the resources and support to address any concerns.

However, we are mindful that due to the nature of paper mills, they evolve, and we will continue to review and adapt our workflows to counter new threats.

Could you share the changes that have been made to Bioengineered's editorial team?

Evgeniya: Bioengineered’s editorial staff now consists of an Executive Editor, three decision-making Deputy Editors, 20 Associate Editors, and an extensive Editorial Board.

My role, the Executive Editor, is a hybrid role, combining subject expertise with project management to best fit the needs of the journal as it completes these complicated ethical integrity reviews and journal updates, and as we look ahead to new, legitimate submissions to the journal. 

I liaise with the Taylor & Francis Publishing, Ethics and Integrity Team and the journal’s editorial team to ensure all the ethics checks and procedures are working effectively and efficiently. All papers are subject to these rigorous checks before they are passed to our Deputy Editors or Associate Editors. This means that any papers handled by our academic team are backed by our confidence in the supporting data and originality of the work. Our experts are then well placed to make use of the journal’s academic community to ensure that these articles become the best version possible. 

I have a wealth of experience as an editor and have served on a similar journal for over 10 years, including assisting in handling peer review for a high-quality biotechnology journal. Through this previous role, I worked closely with Taylor & Francis on best practices in spotting and dealing with ethical concerns, as well as operating in a sensitive and respectful manner with submitting authors. 

Our Deputy and Associate Editors are leading experts in their fields, lending their own academic networks and expertise to the review process, ensuring that the final papers we publish are of high quality, and strengthened by going through the journal review process. 

Todd: Adding the Executive Editor role has allowed for expedited conversations between our ethics and integrity team and journal authors and editors.

This has ensured that legitimate authors are not caught up inappropriately in our extensive investigations, but are quickly provided with the excellent peer review process we undertake on all of Taylor & Francis’s academic journals. 

What's Bioengineered's peer review process? 

Evgeniya: Ensuring high editorial standards remain at the forefront of Bioengineered .

Articles published in Bioengineered undergo comprehensive and robust single-blind peer review . Articles submitted to the journal are assessed by our Desk Assessment Team, who conduct rigorous checks for a variety of things, including full presentation of accurate data, images that are free from image manipulation, and originality through a Crossref similarity detection check. 

Suitable manuscripts are then evaluated by our Deputy and Associate Editors, before being sent out to two external experts for review. Following peer review and together with the Deputy Editor’s opinion, a decision will then be sent to the authors. 

Any revised paper will then be subject to the same evaluation by our Deputy and Associate Editor(s), who will evaluate whether the paper requires additional review, or whether it resolves the needs of the previous reviewer.

Once the Deputy Editor is happy with the final version of the paper, it will proceed to our production team for publication. 

What wider steps is Taylor & Francis taking to combat paper mills? 

Todd: Publishers play an important role in ensuring the legitimacy and integrity of what is published and disseminated across the world. Taylor & Francis have heavily invested in systems, safeguards, and expertise to ensure due process has been applied to the scholarly content we publish. The paper mill problem doesn’t just concern publishers but the scholarly record as a whole, and therefore collaboration is key to addressing this issue. Taylor & Francis regularly participates in cross-publisher working groups and task forces with COPE and STM on developing industry-wide guidance, policies, and tools. We are actively involved with the STM Integrity Hub , which was launched in early 2022, and contribute to the paper mills working group, image manipulation working group, and the duplicate submission working group.

As part of this project, Taylor & Francis, alongside other publishers, makes important contributions to research integrity through the editorial process, the peer review process, and building and maintaining a permanent record of scholarly information. Together, the STM integrity hub is working on projects and development of software to address the problem of paper mills. We are also committed to educating about paper mill activity and raising awareness both internally and externally to combat this issue. We do this by providing training, having educational content on our websites, speaking at external events, doing media interviews, running author workshops, and partnering with industry groups such as COPE and STM.

Why should researchers publish with Bioengineered ?

Evgeniya: We’re confident that our efforts tackling the paper mill issue on Bioengineered are restoring trust in the journal. The initial manuscript checks carried out by Desk Assessment are completed quickly, and our peer review turnaround times remain swift. New submissions can expect a timely response: on average it takes 17 days from submission to first decision, 39 days from submission to first post-review decision, and 40 days from acceptance to online publication. However, we prioritize the highest ethical standards on Bioengineered , and as an editorial team we will continue to prioritize careful handling and high-quality standards over fast turnaround times when necessary. 

Todd: We are a leading publisher, with some of the most prestigious journals in the world.

Our author survey shows an overall satisfaction level of 85% over the past 12 months across all stages of the publication process. Additionally, Taylor & Francis’ program of full open-access journals, which includes Bioengineered, enables researchers to make their research freely and permanently available so anyone, anywhere can read and build upon their work. Articles receive global marketing and publicity, ensuring research is discovered by key audiences across the globe. This leads to open-access articles having increased visibility and discoverability with on average eight times more readers than for traditionally published articles, which, in turn, can lead to more citations.

Open-access articles reach beyond academia, with research potentially informing and developing public policy and teaching practices, being read by the public, and being picked up by the media.

What's next for Bioengineered ?

Evgeniya: Our current focus is to ensure the continuation of high-quality processes and publications, bringing the journal into its next stage of success.

The journal welcomes submissions from the global community to be part of this, especially for those with a focus on the techno-socio-economic use of biotechnology for food, pharmaceutical and industrial applications, and its use in bioprocesses, bioproducts, conversion technologies, sustainable biological recycling and the recovery of environmental resources.

You might also like:

Insights and blogs.

• Publishing ethics and research integrity with Dr. Sabina Alum [video]
• Diversity in academic publishing: How can publishers help repair the 'leaky pipeline'?
• What's stopping AI regulation?

See all insights and blogs

More from Taylor & Francis

• Bioengineered on Tandfonline
• Taylor & Francis welcomes the launch of STM's paper mill detection tool

Social justice and sustainability

Find out about the content we publish, commitments we've made, and initiatives we support related to social justice and sustainability:

• Social justice
• Sustainability

• - Google Chrome

Intended for healthcare professionals

• Access provided by Google Indexer
• My email alerts
• BMA member login
• Username * Password * Forgot your log in details? Need to activate BMA Member Log In Log in via OpenAthens Log in via your institution

Search form

• Advanced search
• Search responses
• Search blogs
• Retracted papers...

Retracted papers originating from paper mills: cross sectional study

• Related content
• Peer review
• Cristina Candal-Pedreira , doctoral candidate 1 2 ,
• Joseph S Ross , professor 3 4 5 ,
• Alberto Ruano-Ravina , professor 1 2 6 ,
• David S Egilman , clinical professor 7 ,
• Esteve Fernández , professor 8 9 ,
• Mónica Pérez-Ríos , associate professor 1 2 6
• 1 Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
• 2 Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela-IDIS), Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain
• 3 Section of General Internal Medicine and National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
• 4 Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
• 5 Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA
• 6 Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
• 7 Family Medicine Department, Alpert School of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
• 8 Tobacco Control Unit, WHO Collaborating Centre for Tobacco Control, Institut Català d’Oncologia-ICO, L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Catalonia, Spain
• 9 Consortium for Biomedical Research in Respitarory Diseases (CIBER en Enfermedades Respiratorias-CIBERES), Madrid, Spain
• Correspondence to: A Ruano-Ravina [email protected] (or @albertoruano8 on Twitter)
• Accepted 11 July 2022

Objectives To describe retracted papers originating from paper mills, including their characteristics, visibility, and impact over time, and the journals in which they were published.

Design Cross sectional study.

Setting The Retraction Watch database was used for identification of retracted papers from paper mills, Web of Science was used for the total number of published papers, and data from Journal Citation Reports were collected to show characteristics of journals.

Participants All paper mill papers retracted from 1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022 were included in the study. Papers bearing an expression of concern were excluded.

Main outcome measures Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample and analyse the trend of retracted paper mill papers over time, and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.

Results 1182 retracted paper mill papers were identified. The publication of the first paper mill paper was in 2004 and the first retraction was in 2016; by 2021, paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 total retractions. Overall, retracted paper mill papers were mostly published in journals of the second highest Journal Citation Reports quartile for impact factor (n=529 (44.8%)) and listed four to six authors (n=602 (50.9%)). Of the 1182 papers, almost all listed authors of 1143 (96.8%) paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions and 909 (76.9%) listed a hospital as a primary affiliation. 15 journals accounted for 812 (68.7%) of 1182 paper mill retractions, with one journal accounting for 166 (14.0%). Nearly all (n=1083, 93.8%) paper mill retractions had received at least one citation since publication, with a median of 11 (interquartile range 5-22) citations received.

Conclusions Papers retracted originating from paper mills are increasing in frequency, posing a problem for the research community. Retracted paper mill papers most commonly originated from China and were published in a small number of journals. Nevertheless, detected paper mill papers might be substantially different from those that are not detected. New mechanisms are needed to identify and avoid this relatively new type of misconduct.

Introduction

Scientific misconduct, which includes plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification of data or images, is the most common cause of retraction of biomedical papers. 1 2 Fraudulent papers have negative consequences for the scientific community and the general public, engendering distrust in science, false claims of drug or device efficacy, and unjustified academic promotion, among other problems. Moreover, misconduct encompasses other unethical practices that are often difficult to detect, such as undeclared competing interests, authorship issues, and duplicated publication. 3

As scientific findings evolve and publication of science is modernised, new types of misconduct and fraud emerge. One example is the use of the so-called paper mills. In scientific publishing, the term paper mill refers to for-profit organisations that engage in the large scale production and sale of papers to researchers, academics, and students who wish to, or have to, publish in peer reviewed journals, both national and international. Many paper mill papers included fabricated data. 4 We refer to this process as ghost fabrication to distinguish the process from ghost writing.

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), these organisations prepare manuscripts and seek to sell them. In some cases, they sell the authorship before publication, they then handle the submission and the peer review process. Other organisations sell the authorship after the manuscript has been accepted for publication in a legitimate scientific journal. When this scenario occurs, the organisation includes the author or authors who bought the authorship on the list of named authors, which amounts to a (sometimes total) change in authorship. 4 In addition to selling the authorship of scientific papers, these organisations offer other services, ranging from making available or fabricating a database on which a study can be based, to falsifying a journal peer review so as to enable a paper to be published more easily. 5 Paper mills have now broadened their service portfolio, by offering citations to papers already published by researchers on their own studies. 6 Some of these organisations claim to have links with scientific journals, thereby ensuring publication of the manufactured manuscript. 7 8

Paper mill papers are a growing problem with important potential consequences because they amount to systematic manipulation of the scientific publication process, as well as dissemination of false results. Additionally, publication of paper mill papers artificially inflates researchers’ curriculum without merit and diminishes trust in the scientific enterprise. This type of fraud has already given rise to various retractions and Retraction Watch, a well known organisation with a blog of retractions that dates from 2010, maintains a database of retracted articles that includes paper mill publication as a reason for retraction since 2021. 9 As a relatively novel situation, the way of working and characteristics of these paper mills are not very well known, although Retraction Watch has published the results of a research into how the best known paper mill in Russia operates. 10 Even so, little is known about what types of authors use the services of paper mills, in what types of journals they publish, in which fields, and the prestige of the journals in which they publish, based on their impact factor.

Thus, our objective was to analyse the trend in papers retracted for originating from paper mills; to characterise the papers retracted for this reason, along with the journals in which they were published; and to analyse their impact and visibility by reference to the number of citations received.

Study design and data collection

We conducted a cross sectional analysis of all papers retracted for being paper mill papers, from 1 January 2004, the year of publication of the first paper mill paper identified, until 26 June 2022, the date when we last accessed the database. These papers were identified via the Retraction Watch database, 9 using the filter “Reason for retraction” and choosing the option “Paper mill.” We included all papers retracted for this reason and excluded papers bearing an expression of concern, where scientific misconduct had not been confirmed.

All the variables of interest were collected and stored in a purposely designed database. To conduct this study, we used three main data sources: the Retraction Watch database, Web of Science, and Journal Citation Reports (both belonging to Clarivate Analytics). Additionally, we consulted the full text of the papers included to record information related to the characteristics of the paper, such as the date of submission and publication, authors’ statement of funding, and competing interests.

Retraction Watch database

Retraction Watch tracks scientific publications, regardless of language, that have been retracted and aggregates them into a publicly available database, including different variables of interest extracted by their staff. This database includes more than 30 000 retractions and expressions of concern. 9

The Retraction Watch database has higher coverage of retractions than PubMed and CrossRef because these databases use different sources to detect retracted articles and notices of retraction. The main sources for the identification of retractions are publishers’ and editors’ websites, but reports of scientific integrity investigations, social media sites, and tips from their blog followers are also checked. Staff at Retraction Watch use PubMed and Web of Science to double check the retractions. To identify retractions, staff at Retraction Watch run protocolised manual searches daily using keywords such as “retraction,” “withdrawn,” or “retracted paper.”

Retraction Watch uses mainly the information included in the notice of retraction to classify retractions into different reasons. Retraction Watch also manually checks other sources for clarification of information, such as institutional investigation reports and US Office of Research Integrity reports.

In the specific case of paper mill products, Retraction Watch’s identification is based on several indicators. One is the notice of retraction, some clearly state that the paper is from a paper mill, others use a euphemism for paper mill such as “third party editing service.” In other cases, journals and publishers retract a large number of articles accompanied by an editorial indicating that the retracted papers were from paper mills. These editorials usually use a similar language, stating that the paper “resembles different papers from different authors.” Retraction Watch also uses PubPeer and the list of probable paper mill papers published by Elisabeth Bik and other investigators. 11

We sourced the total number of papers retracted for any reason per year and the total number retracted for originating from paper mills per year. For every paper retracted for the reason of originating from a paper mill, we collected the following: title of paper; number of authors; authors’ affiliated country; first author’s institution; type of institution of first author (hospital, university, research centre); and paper’s date of publication and date of retraction. The last access to the database was 26 June 2022.

Web of Science

We retrieved the total number of papers published per year across the study period (1 January 2004 to 26 June 2022) with no exceptions. For every paper included, we collected the total number of citations received, both before and after retraction, from date of publication until 26 June 2022.

Journal Citation Reports

We gathered data for the journal that published each paper and its characteristics, such as its name, Journal Citation Reports impact factor, Journal Citation Reports category, and relative position by Journal Citation Reports quartile (ie, the highest impact factor of journals belonging to the first quartile (or Q1) and the lowest impact factor journals to the fourth quartile (or Q4)), and publication modality (open access or subscription). Where the journal was included in more than one category, we chose the highest position according to the journal impact factor. We categorised hybrid journals as non-Open Access journals.

Statistical analysis

We used a descriptive analysis of the characteristics of the retracted papers identified, by reference to the variables of interest, with continuous variables being expressed as median and interquartile range, and categorical variables as absolute number and relative frequency.

We calculated the publication rate of papers that were retracted because of paper mills per 100 000 papers published in a given year, over the total number of papers published for the same year. Therefore, we assessed the proportion of papers mill publications regarding the total number of publications in each year of the study period. Additionally, we calculated the percentage of paper mill papers retracted per year, with respect to the total number of retractions per year, to ascertain the proportion of paper mill retractions compared with retractions for any other reason.

We described the distribution of this type of papers by Journal Citation Reports category of the journal in which they were published. We created a ranking of journals and publishers based on the number of retracted paper mill papers they published during the study period. We have determined if the journal of publication was reliable, that is, not suspected of being a predatory journal, in the subsample of the scientific journals that published the most retracted paper mill papers. To assess the reliability of a journal, we used the ThinkCheckSubmit checklist ( https://thinkchecksubmit.org/journals ).

We calculated the time elapsed between the paper’s submission and publication and the time elapsed between the paper’s publication and retraction, in days. Analysis of the times elapsed between submission and publication and the times between publication and retraction were stratified by the Journal Citation Reports quartile of the journal in which the paper was published. Similarly, we analysed the total citations received by the papers, both overall and stratified by quartile. All statistical analyses were done using the Stata version 17.0 computer software programme.

Patient and public involvement

This research was done on agreement with Retraction Watch, where we committed to use a database under specific circumstances, including confidential uses, and to avoid sharing the downloaded database with third parties. We did not test any especific health intervention or drug, therefore, we did not think that patient or public involvement would be helpful in this research.

We identified 1182 retractions of paper mill papers from the Retraction Watch database that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. During the study period, 58 278 163 papers were published and 33 741 were retracted for any reason, including being a paper mill product; a rate of 57.9 retractions per 100 000 publications. Figure 1 shows the number of paper mill papers published per year (and then retracted) with respect to the total number of papers published in each year. The year of the first publication of an identified paper mill paper was 2004, and the first retraction for this reason took place in 2016.

Proportion, per 100 000, of paper mill papers published and then retracted per year with respect to total publications

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

The proportion of paper mill papers published per year in the scientific literature has increased, from 0.04 per 100 000 in 2004 to its peak of 10.6 per 100 000 publications in 2019 ( fig 1 ). After 2020, the number of these papers decreased in comparison with the total number of papers published. The proportion of paper mill retractions to all-cause retractions was low until 2021, the year in which paper mill retractions accounted for 772 (21.8%) of the 3544 retractions ( fig 2 ).

Percentage of paper mill retractions with respect to total retractions

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of retracted paper mill papers. Just over half of these papers had four to six authors; almost all authors of paper mill retractions came from Chinese institutions, followed by far fewer authors from Indian institutions; and more than three quarters of papers had a first author who was affiliated with a hospital. The papers were mainly published in journals of the second Journal Citation Reports quartile and were mainly asigned to the Journal Citation Reports category of pharmacology and pharmacy.

Main characteristics of papers retracted for originatng from paper mills.

• View inline

Of the 1182 papers, 609 (51.5%) included a funding statement, and of these, 387 (63.5%) reported to have received external funding. Furthermore, 984 (83.2%) of papers included a declaration of the authors’ competing interests.

Fifteen scientific journals published a total of 812 (68.7%) of all 1182 papers retracted for being paper mill papers, and 166 (14.0%) were published in one journal, the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences . Of these, all journals appear to be non-predatory journals. Of all journals (n=99), 61 (61.6%) were open access journals ( table 2 ): the highest number of papers published belonging to the Wiley publishing group and then Verduci Editore ( table 3 ). Supplementary tables 1 and 2 include information of all journals and publisher houses.

The fifteen journals with the largest number of papers retracted for originating from paper mills, according to their Journal Citation Reports quartile and whether or not they are open access

Publishing houses of the journals in which papers retracted for originating from paper mills were published

The time elapsed between the manuscript’s submission to the journal and its publication varied according to journal quartile ( table 4 ), from a median of 115 days (interquartile range 80-144), among journals of the first quartile, 128 (82-189) for journals in the second quartile, 163 (119-288) for those in the third quartile, and 332 (189-447) in fourth quartile journals. Likewise, the time between publication and retraction varied; shorter times were noted in journals of the first and second quartiles, and longer times in journals of the third and fourth quartiles and those with no impact factor.

Time elapsed between publication and retraction of papers retracted for originating from paper mills, both overall and by quartile of journal in which they were published. Data are median (interquartile range)

While 1086 (93.8%) of retracted paper mill papers received at least one citation, papers published in third and fourth quartile journals received a higher number of citations ( fig 3 ). The median number of citations received by retracted paper mill papers from the date of publication was 11 (interquartile range 5-22), with the total ranging from 0 to 131 citations.

Citations received by papers retracted for originating from paper mills, by quartile of journal in which they were published based on the impact factor. 24 values were missing. The box represents the interquartile range of the variable, the horizontal line inside the box indicates the median, the lower whisker indicates the lowest value excluding the outliers and the upper whisker indicates the highest value excluding the outliers. The circles represent the outliers of the variables

Principal findings

Our cross sectional analysis of all papers retracted for originating from paper mills until June 2022, identified from the Retraction Watch database, suggests that these paper mill retractions are increasing in frequency. Nearly all authors of these papers came from China and were predominantly affiliated with hospitals. The median time for retraction of a paper mill paper was close to two years and increased with the ranking of the journal in which it was published, so that the higher the Journal Citation Reports impact factor, the shorter the period until retraction. These papers affect legitimate journals and does not seem to be exclusive to predatory journals. Furthermore, this study showed the impact and visibility of these retracted papers because some were highly cited, with the potential consequences that this entails. To our knowledge, this is the first study to analyse the growing phenomenon of paper mill retractions and their characteristics.

Our findings suggest that the publication of paper mill papers increased between 2017 and 2019, when about 5 to 10 were published and eventually retracted for this reason per 100 000 publications. In 2020, the number of identified paper mill papers published in the scientific literature fell sharply. This decrease may have occurred for a number of reasons. Firstly, papers published between 2020 and 2022 that might eventually be identified for retraction have not yet been identified or retracted. Retraction of a paper takes a long time, and more retractions will possibly appear in the future. Secondly, as a result of investigations initiated in early 2020 by a number of editors and researchers, 12 the scientific community have become aware of the problem, and guidelines have been published to help editors identify such papers. 4 Even though these guidelines do not enable a paper mill paper to be unequivocally recognised, they do make screening and identification of papers originating fom paper mills possible. Hence, numbers might be smaller than would have been because scientific journals have improved methods for their identication during editorial review and peer review, thereby preventing their publication. Thirdly, the increased attention to this type of fraud might also have deterred authors from engaging the services of paper mills, because of the consequences of scientific fraud, especially in some countries such as China. 13 Then again, an increased exposure could have caused paper mill organisations to change their mode of operation, thus hindering detection. 14

Although this issue is relatively new, particularly in America and Europe, for some years now the use of these types of organisations has been widespread in other countries, such as China. 10 15 China encouraged its researchers to publish papers in return for money and career promotions. 16 Furthermore, medical students at Chinese universities are required to produce a scientific paper in order to graduate. 15 In fact, these organisations openly advertise their services on the Internet and maintain a presence on university campuses, not only in China but also in other countries, such as Russia. 8 15

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most papers retracted for being paper mill papers come from that same country. These results are in line with the findings of other researchers and editors of scientific journals, although paper mill papers have been reported in other countries, such as Iran or Russia. 8 12 17 The activity of the largest paper mill organisation in Russia named International Publisher has recently been acknowledged. 8 10 Although this paper mill has published approximately 1000 papers, its own website announces that more than 5000 authors have bought the coauthorship of at least one paper. 8

Also, we note that most authors of identified paper mill papers were hospital affiliated, which is consistent with previous research. 15 The main reason for this might be that Chinese doctors are not affiliated with medical schools, but with hospitals. Of note, pressure to publish is greater in biomedical sciences than other specialties and publications are usually needed to get a university degree or a promotion in China. 15

Most paper mill papers were published in pharmacy and clinical medicine journals, but many of them were published in basic science journals as well, such as cellular and molecular biology or biochemistry. Therefore, this problem not only affects clinical medicine areas. This research has not focused in analyzing specifically if paper mill papers are published more frequently on clinical medicine topics or basic research. We are of the opinion that this aspect should be further analysed. According to our results, no major variations over time have been observed in the topics covered by the paper mill papers so far. However, the latest COPE report indicates that this pattern could change, for example in topic areas or types of journals, over time. 18

The main problem which paper mill papers pose for editors and reviewers of scientific journals is the difficulty of identifying them through the peer review process because the papers appear to be legitimate. Analysis of images in a manuscript has been identified as one of the possible strategies for detecting paper mill papers because most images tend to be manipulated or duplicated, or both. 14 Although different softwares are capable of detecting image manipulation, paper mill papers often use duplicated images (or stock images) 5 19 because they are more difficult to detect than manipulated ones. At present, no software is capable of detecting image duplication in a reliable way, thus leaving this task to editors and reviewers. That said, however, not all papers contain images that allow for scrutiny. Another strategy for screening questionable papers is the Problematic Paper Screener software. This software identifies so-called “tortured phrases,”—that is, unusual phrases instead of established ones, which might be an indicator of suspected scientific misconduct. 20 Also, COPE has published a list of common indicators for paper mill papers that could serve as a screening tool for suspicious articles. 18

With the aim of preventing and detecting scientific misconduct, some countries already have offices and specific bodies that address aspects relating to scientific integrity, but many others do not have structures of this type. 21 Countries that have no body or policies governing scientific misconduct incur a higher risk of producing fraudulent papers. 22 Countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and China, have passed laws against scientific fraud. Ironically, China has the most severe penalties for research fraud. The paucity of consequences that scientific misconduct has historically had in this country might have played an important role in the increase in unethical behaviour, including the use of paper mills. 15 In 2018, after a number of scandals in China, the law against scientific fraud was strengthened by imposing sanctions that go beyond the purely academic and occupational sphere. 23 This tougher approach appears to have started yielding results and, in December 2021, more than 300 researchers were reportedly penalised for scientific misconduct. Among other things, the penalties included revocation of academic degrees and cancellation of promotions. 24 Because practically all paper mill papers come from China, these recent penalties policy might have contributed to the reduction in the number of paper mills since 2020.

Strengths and limitations

This study had limitations. Retractions of paper mill papers continue over time. Because of this, our investigation will need to be updated over time as the conclusions could well vary as the list of retractions grows. The characteristics of retracted and non-retracted paper mill papers can differ, which could explain why some papers were identified but not others, although all represent fraudulent science. Another limitation was the difficulty in assigning the cause of retraction in some cases, hence misclassification is a risk. In this study, we have included formally retracted paper mill papers, not taking into account suspicious papers (ie, those from the list elaborated by EB and others) and this might be a limitation of the present research. However, the inclusion of papers not formally retracted might incur in a risk of misclassification of those papers if they are not finally retracted as paper mill products. A limitation regarding the citation analysis is that citations before and after retraction have not been differentiated in this study and this issue should be considered in future research.

The main strength of this study was the use of the Retraction Watch database to identify retracted paper mill papers because this source is the main database on retractions and should currently be considered as the gold standard for aggregated information on retracted articles. The Retraction Watch database has three times the coverage of PubMed and five times the coverage of CrossRef (Retraction Watch, personal communication, 2022). Taking this into account, we consider that the number of missing retractions should be minimal.

Conclusions

The paper mill papers that we have identified as retracted to date possibly represent only a small number of paper mill papers in total because potentially thousands of these papers could have been published in the scientific literature and not yet identified nor retracted. Some editors of international scientific journals have begun to systematically identify and retract paper mill papers, which has led to mass retractions. 25 26 The rise of paper mills is a new ethical problem in research and, more specifically, in publication ethics. Not only does this issue entail the sale of authorship, but these types of papers have also been observed to contain fabricated and manipulated data and images, thus disseminating false results in scientific literature. Efforts must be increased to prevent the use of these paper mill organisations, beginning with improved education in ethics and scientific integrity for editorial committees of scientific journals, students, and researchers.

What is already know on this topic

Evidence regarding paper mills organisations and articles produced by them is scarce

Information is needed about the characteristics of paper mill articles to identify and retract them, thus allowing the scientific literature to be corrected

What this study adds

This study analyses the evolution of paper mill papers, their characteristics, and their visibility in the scientific community

Retractions of paper mill papers are increasing in frequency and some of them are of highly cited papers, with the potential consequences that this entails

Ethics statements

Ethical approval.

Because this study used publicly available materials and did not involve humans, ethics committee approval was not required.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from Retraction Watch. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under contract license for this study.

Acknowledgments

We thank Retraction Watch for making their data publicly available and Ivan Oransky and Alison Abritis for their constructive comments on the manuscript.

Contributors: CCP was responsible for conceptualisation, methodology, data curation, formal analysis, and original draft preparation. ARR was responsible for conceptualisation, methodology, review, editing, and supervision. JSR was responsible for methodology, review, and editing. DSE was responsible for methodology, review, and editing. EF was responsible for methodology, review, and editing. MPR was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, review, and editing. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding: This work is part of the research conducting to the PhD degree of CC-P, who has received a PFIS (Contrato Predoctoral de Formación en Investigación en Salud) fellowship reference number FI21/00149 from the Health Institute Carlos III. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: JSR receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program (U01FD005938), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International. JSR is also an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. DSE serves as an expert witness in asbestos, talc, opioid, and concussion litigation at the request of injured people. No other authors declared any potential competing interests.

The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Dissemination to participants and related patient and public communities: We plan to disseminate our findings in public communities. Inmediately after publication we will launch a press release with the help of the press office of our University, and we expect that these findings will be published in mass media including newspapers and radio interviews. We will also use social networks such as Twitter and Linkedin and also communicate our results to Spanish Scientific Societies. Advocacy networks with interest in research integrity will also be contacted.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

• Campos-Varela I ,
• Ruano-Raviña A
• Casadevall A
• ↵ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2018. www.equator-network.org .
• ↵ COPE Forum. 4 September 2020: paper mills. COPE: Committee on Publication Ethics.. https://publicationethics.org/resources/forum-discussions/publishing-manipulation-paper-mills
• Teixeira da Silva JA
• Christopher J
• ↵ Zhang W, Pan Y. The gray industry chain of article writing business: starting at 2,000 and up to 150 000 for an SCI-indexed article. China News 2015 Sep 17. https://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/2015/09-17/7530105.shtml.
• ↵ Abalkina A. Publication and collaboration anomalies in academic papers originating from a paper mill: evidence from Russia. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.13322
• ↵ Retraction Watch. The Retraction Watch Database. New York: The Center for Scientific Integrity; 2018. www.retractiondatabase.org
• ↵ Retraction Watch. Revealed: The inner workings of a paper mill – retraction watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/20/revealed-the-inner-workings-of-a-paper-mill/
• ↵ Science Integrity Digest. The Tadpole Paper Mill. https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/02/21/the-tadpole-paper-mill/
• Van Noorden R
• Cyranoski D
• ↵ Stone R. A shady market in scientific papers mars Iran’s rise in science. Science . 2016. https://www.science.org/content/article/shady-market-scientific-papers-mars-iran-s-rise-science
• ↵ COPE; STM. Paper mills research report with recommendations. doi: 10.24318/jtbG8IHL
• Bianchini F ,
• Souren NY ,
• Wilhelm C ,
• ↵ Cabanac G, Labbé C, Magazinov A. Tortured phrases: a dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06751
• ↵ Candal-Pedreira C, Ruano-Ravina A, Pérez-Ríos M. Should the European Union have an office of research integrity?. Eur J Intern Med ; 2021. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34362610/
• Fanelli D ,
• Larivière V
• ↵ Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China. Notice from the Ministry of Science and Technology on the recent investigation and handling of thesis falsification. https://www.most.gov.cn/zxgz/kycxjs/kycxgzdt/202112/t20211201_178285.html
• ↵ Retraction Watch. Publisher retracts nearly 80 articles over three days. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11/14/publisher-retracts-nearly-80-articles-over-three-days/
• ↵ Retraction Watch. Journal retracts 122 papers at once. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/12/15/journal-retracts-122-papers-at-once/#more-123768

• Apply to UMaine

UMaine News

$1.6M donation will accelerate progress within the pulp and paper industry

Packaging Corporation of America (PCA) has donated $1.6 million to the University of Maine to establish the UMaine Sustainable Packaging Initiative. 

The UMaine Sustainable Packaging Initiative is a research-based public and private consortium that focuses on using forest-based materials to accelerate the transition to renewable and recyclable packaging made from forest fiber. 

“As a UMaine graduate, I am happy to be part of PCA’s involvement in the UMaine Process Development Center. This investment will enable the PDC to expand research and development activities and industry support to include packaging grades. Sustainable packaging represents a huge potential for the paper industry; it is exciting to be a part of this change both as a PCA employee and a UMaine advocate,” said Barbara Hamilton, senior director of process control technology at PCA.

PCA’s donation will support the university’s Process Development Center (PDC). The PDC is a unique, open-access research facility that offers research and development technical services and resources in traditional pulp and paper, as well as emerging process technologies and material science. Funds will provide infrastructure improvements and new equipment to foster growth in becoming the leading R&D/pilot production lab for renewable packaging in the U.S.  

“This gift is transformative for the PDC,” said center Director Colleen Walker. “Not only will the PDC be better able to serve company and university researchers developing and commercializing new forest-based solutions for packaging, but we are engaging our Black Bear students in this process to provide hands-on research learning experiences.”

PCA’s donation will also help leverage the $75 million matching challenge grant from the Harold Alfond Foundation to support the Maine College of Engineering and Computing, a signature initiative of UMS TRANSFORMS . The initiative is focused on attracting thousands of new engineering and computing students to the state and expanding educational opportunities in emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, renewable energy and advanced materials. The Maine College of Engineering and Computing is a statewide, integrated solution to providing the technical workforce and innovations critical to moving Maine’s economy forward and improving R&D for state-based industry.

“We are grateful to PCA for this generous gift that will allow the continued support of research and innovation at the University of Maine,” said UMaine President Joan Ferrini-Mundy. “This gift will position us as a world leader in sustainable packaging, as well as offer research learning opportunities to current and future students.”

PCA is a long-time supporter of UMaine through the UMaine Pulp and Paper Foundation. The foundation supports aspiring engineers who are interested in pursuing careers in the paper industry. 

“The UMaine Pulp and Paper Foundation’s students have long benefitted from the extraordinary vision of PCA and its CEO and Chairman, Mark Kowlzan,” said UMPPF President Carrie Enos. “We are proud to connect PCA with our partners at the PDC as the University of Maine continues to build its reputation as a leader in cutting-edge uses for forest fiber.”

PCA’s donation is just one of several investments recognizing the leadership of the state and UMaine in the national forest sector. In October, Maine was designated a Forest Bioproducts Advanced Manufacturing Tech Hub by the Biden-Harris Administration through the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration. In March, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Sen. Angus King announced they had secured $10 million in one-time Congressionally Directed Spending to build and equip the Forest Biomaterials Innovation Center , an extension of the existing UMaine Process Development Center, to enable researchers and entrepreneurs to develop new forest-based products utilizing wood and wood residuals. These investments represent many of the recommendations from FOR/Maine to create jobs and economic opportunities for Maine’s forest economy and rural communities. 

Contact: Shelby Hartin, [email protected]

• UMaine Today Magazine
• Submit news

General Manager at Paper Mill Pub

Job posting for general manager at paper mill pub at compass group careers.

Salary: $60-65k

Other Forms of Compensation:  

Pay Grade: 12  

Different perspectives make us better. We’re committed to creating an equal opportunity and fair treatment environment, where learning and growing together is just part of our every day. An environment where you can be your authentic self. 

About Levy The disruptor in defining the sports and entertainment hospitality experience, Levy is recognized as the market leader and most critically acclaimed hospitality company in its industry. Twice named one of the 10 most innovative companies in sports by Fast Company magazine and one of the top three Best Employers for Diversity in America by Forbes, Levy’s diverse portfolio includes award-winning restaurants; iconic sports and entertainment venues, zoos and cultural institutions, theaters, and convention centers; as well as the Super Bowl, Grammy Awards, US Open Tennis Tournament, Kentucky Derby, and NHL, MLB, NBA, NFL, and MLS All-Star Games. 

Job Summary

The General Manager is responsible for leading our team at the Paper Mill Pub at Truist Filed, Home of the Charlotte Knights - ensuring high standards of the guest experience, safety, and financial performance. The ideal candidate will be an experienced food and beverage leader. A great coach who can get the best out of people and continually drive operational performance and execution.

Detailed Responsibilities

• Proactively coaching and motivating team members to deliver their best
• Identifying opportunities and driving continual improvement in our location operations
• Building a strong partnership with locations partners
• Working with regional and Home Office leadership to drive innovation and best practices at the location
• Delivering against our financial goals and budgets

Detailed Responsibilities Cont'd

• Coaching the operations team
• Representing Professional Sports Catering and our business objectives at partner meetings, networking and building relationships with key partners and vendors
• Overseeing and ensuring the highest standards of safety and sanitation in all activities across the location
• Reviewing financial reports and developing action plans to best achieve business goals
• Leading the continual development of the location’s food story and guest experience
• Completing team member performance reviews including career development planning and compensation reviews
• Responding to emails, phone calls and any associated administrative work corresponding with role responsibilities
• Interviewing applicants interested in roles requiring hiring consideration and approval
• Collaborating with culinary leadership and partners to drive menu development and associated operational enhancements
• Coaching team members for optimal performance and engagement
• Conducting manager meetings to engage, inform and build alignment
• Conducting building safety walks so our locations maintain an outstanding level of safety and cleanliness
• Completing corrective action, where necessary, to hold team members accountable and improve future performance
• Closing/Signoff Payroll on a bi-weekly basis for team members
• Ensuring all financial reporting is completed in a timely and accurate manner
• Leading continual operational improvement planning
• Planning budget and P&L management to support optimal financial achievement
• Other duties as assigned

Short Description

Job Requirements

• 5 leadership experience in Hospitality or Retail
• Bachelor’s Degree in Hospitality Management is preferred
• High level of computer literacy
• Understanding of financial concepts
• Passion for hospitality, food, and retail
• Excellent interpersonal and stakeholder management skills

Curious about Life at Levy? Check it out: Levy Culture

Positions at this location may require a COVID-19 vaccination. Where permitted by law, applicants who are offered a position for this account may be asked about their vaccination status, which must meet minimum business requirements. All religious, medical, or other legally recognized exemptions regarding vaccination status will be considered.

Levy is a member of Compass Group USA. Compass Group/Levy is an equal opportunity employer. At Compass/Levy, we are committed to treating all Applicants and Associates fairly based on their abilities, achievements, and experience without regard to race, national origin, sex, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other classification protected by law.

Qualified candidates must be able to perform the essential functions of this position satisfactorily with or without a reasonable accommodation. Disclaimer: this job post is not necessarily an exhaustive list of all essential responsibilities, skills, tasks, or requirements associated with this position. While this is intended to be an accurate reflection of the position posted, the Company reserves the right to modify or change the essential functions of the job based on business necessity.

We will consider for employment all qualified applicants, including those with a criminal history (including relevant driving history), in a manner consistent with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the City of Los Angeles’ Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance, the San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance, and the New York Fair Chance Act. We encourage applicants with a criminal history (and driving history) to apply.

Applications are accepted on an ongoing basis. 

At Levy, team = family. And we’ll always take care of family, learn more about Levy benefits offered.

• Life Insurance/ AD
• Disability Insurance
• Retirement Plan
• Flexible Time Off Plan
• Holiday Time Off (varies by site/state)
• Associate Shopping Program
• Health and Wellness Programs
• Discount Marketplace
• Identity Theft Protection
• Pet Insurance
• Commuter Benefits
• Employee Assistance Program
• Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs)

Levy maintains a drug-free workplace.

Req ID:  1286656

Levy Sector 

[[Cust_clntAcName]]  

DANIELLE M ROSE 

[[req_classification]] 

Apply for this job

Receive alerts for other General Manager at Paper Mill Pub job openings

Report this Job

Sign up to receive alerts about other jobs with skills like those required for the General Manager at Paper Mill Pub .

Click the checkbox next to the jobs that you are interested in.

Ad Hoc Reporting Skill

• Financial Systems Analyst V Income Estimation: $130,507 - $179,080
• Financial Systems Senior Manager Income Estimation: $168,216 - $211,211

Business Intelligence Skill

• Business Intelligence Manager Income Estimation: $137,546 - $183,061
• Data Scientist IV Income Estimation: $139,622 - $174,992

Job openings at Compass Group Careers

Not the job you're looking for here are some other general manager at paper mill pub jobs in the charlotte, nc area that may be a better fit., we don't have any other general manager at paper mill pub jobs in the charlotte, nc area right now..

BARTENDER - Paper Mill Pub

Compass Group Careers , Charlotte, NC

Compass Group USA , Charlotte, NC

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 07 February 2024

Fake research papers flagged by analysing authorship trends

• Dalmeet Singh Chawla

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A research-technology firm has developed a new approach to help identify journal articles that originate from paper mills — companies that churn out fake or poor-quality studies and sell authorships.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00344-w

Porter, S. J. & McIntosh, L. D. Preprint at arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.04022 (2024).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Scientific community

AI-fuelled election campaigns are here — where are the rules?

World View 09 APR 24

How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews

News 28 MAR 24

Superconductivity case shows the need for zero tolerance of toxic lab culture

Correspondence 26 MAR 24

India is booming — but there are worries ahead for basic science

News 10 APR 24

Is ChatGPT corrupting peer review? Telltale words hint at AI use

Total solar eclipse 2024: what dazzled scientists

Rwanda 30 years on: understanding the horror of genocide

Editorial 09 APR 24

How I harnessed media engagement to supercharge my research career

Career Column 09 APR 24

Postdoctoral Associate

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Associate or Senior Editor (clinical microbiology and infectious diseases)

Do you love science but feel that a career at the bench isn’t enough to sate your desire to learn more about the natural world?

London, New York, Pune – Hybrid working model.

Springer Nature Ltd

Performance Analyst

Reporting into the Head of Performance, OA agreements, the role will support the business transition to open access.

London – hybrid working model

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis

PhD position (all genders) in AI for biomedical data analysis Part time  | Temporary | Arbeitsort: Hamburg-Eppendorf UKE_Zentrum für Molekulare Ne...

Hamburg (DE)

Personalwerk GmbH

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Developing ash-free high-strength spherical carbon catalyst supports

• Domestic Catalysts
• Published: 28 June 2013
• Volume 5 , pages 156–163, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• V. V. Gur’yanov 1 ,
• V. M. Mukhin 1 &
• A. A. Kurilkin 1  

49 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The possibility of using furfurol for the production of ash-free high-strength active carbons with spheroidal particles as adsorbents and catalyst supports is substantiated. A single-stage process that incorporates the resinification of furfurol, the molding of a spherical product, and its hardening while allowing the process cycle time and the cost of equipment to be reduced is developed. Derivatographic, X-ray diffraction, mercury porometric, and adsorption studies of the carbonization of the molded spherical product are performed to characterize the development of the primary and porous structures of carbon residues. Ash-free active carbons with spheroidal particles, a full volume of sorbing micro- and mesopores (up to 1.50 cm 3 /g), and a uniquely high mechanical strength (its abrasion rate is three orders of magnitude lower than that of industrial active carbons) are obtained via the vapor-gas activation of a carbonized product. The obtained active carbons are superior to all known foreign and domestic analogues and are promising for the production of catalysts that operate under severe regimes, i.e., in moving and fluidized beds.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Methods for preparation and activation of activated carbon: a review

Zoha Heidarinejad, Mohammad Hadi Dehghani, … Mika Sillanpää

A review on application of activated carbons for carbon dioxide capture: present performance, preparation, and surface modification for further improvement

Ammar Ali Abd, Mohd Roslee Othman & Jinsoo Kim

High-efficiency Ce-modified ZSM-5 nanosheets for waste plastic upgrading

Xiaomei Wang, Xueting Wu, … Hongjie Zhang

Burushkina, T.N., Zh. Ross. Khim. O-va im. D.I. Mendeleeva , 1995, vol. 39, no. 6, p. 122.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Kryazhev, Yu. G., Abstract of Papers, Materialy XII vserossiiskogo simpoziuma s uchastiem inostrannykh uchenykh “Aktual’nye problemy teorii adsorptsii, poristosti i adsorptsionnoi selektivnosti” (Proc. of XII th All-Russia Symposium with the Participation of Foreign Scientists “Urgent Problems of the Theory of Adsorption, Porosity, and Adsorption Selectivity”), Moscow, 2008, p. 69.

Google Scholar  

Kartel’, N.T., in Adsorbtsiya, adsorbenty i adsorbtsionnye protsessy v nanoporistykh materialakh (Adsorption, Adsorbents, and Adsorption Processes in Nanoporous Materials), Tsivadze, A.Yu., Ed., Moscow: Granitsa, 2011, p. 381.

RF Patent 2026813, 1993.

RF Patent 2257343, 2003.

RF Patent 2301701, 2006.

Dubinin, M.M., Zaverina, E.D., Ivanova, L.S., Kaverov, A.T., and Kasatochkin, V.I., Rus. Chem. Bull. , 1961, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 14.

Article   Google Scholar  

Usenbaev, K. and Zhumalieva, K., Rentgenograficheskoe issledovanie struktury i termicheskikh preobrazovanii amorfnykh uglerodov (X-ray Study of the Structure and Thermal Transformations of Amorphous Carbons), Frunze: Mektep, 1976.

Gur’yanova, L.N. and Gur’yanov, V.V., Zh. Fiz. Khim. , 1984, vol. 58, no. 6, p. 1459; 1989, vol. 63, no. 1, p. 161; 1989, vol. 63, no. 2, p. 426; 1989, vol. 63, no. 3, p. 683.

Guryanov, V.V., Petukhova, G.A., and Dubinina, L.A., Prot. Metal. Phys. Chem. Surf. , 2010, vol. 46, no. 2, p. 191.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Guryanov, V.V., Dubinin, M.M., and Misin, M.S., Zh. Fiz. Khim. , 1975, vol. 49, no. 9, p. 2374.

Gur’yanov, V.V., Petukhova, G.A., and Polyakov, N.S., Rus. Chem. Bull. , 2001, vol. 50, no. 6, p. 974.

Dubinin, M.M., Carbon , 1989, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 457.

Belyaev, N.M., Soprotivlenie materialov (Strength of Materials), Moscow: Nauka, 1976.

Temkin, I.V., Proizvodstvo elektrougol’nykh izdelii (Production of Electrocarbon Articles), Moscow: Vysshaya shkola, 1980.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

OAO Elektrostal’ Research and Production Association Neorganika, Elektrostal’, Moscow oblast, 144001, Russia

V. V. Gur’yanov, V. M. Mukhin & A. A. Kurilkin

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Original Russian Text © V.V. Gur’yanov, V.M. Mukhin, A.A. Kurilkin, 2013, published in Kataliz v Promyshlennosti.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Gur’yanov, V.V., Mukhin, V.M. & Kurilkin, A.A. Developing ash-free high-strength spherical carbon catalyst supports. Catal. Ind. 5 , 156–163 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070050413020062

Download citation

Received : 08 December 2011

Published : 28 June 2013

Issue Date : April 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1134/S2070050413020062

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• carbon adsorbent
• porous structure
• polymerization
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research