Fake data, paper mills, and their authors: The <i>International Journal of Cancer</i> reacts to this threat to scientific integrity

The International Journal of Cancer (IJC) has long been a pioneer in the field data integrity, and continues to prioritize strict pre-publication quality control measures order ensure that only reliable reproducible are published. One such measure is our cell line authentication policy. Introduced 2010, IJC requires proper all human lines used manuscript, these documents extensively verified before peer-review process even begins.1 This procedure confirmed many papers submitted include based on false lines. From experience within last years, about 4% manuscripts were selected for peer review included rejected severe related issues. While some other journals have since also introduced policies, remain much less stringent still allow authors option declare their not authenticated. Furthermore, 2017, we thoroughly check image integrity issues acceptance. In 2019, started checking figures already at first revision stage, additionally began requiring provide raw images (for Western Blots, but others, if necessary). majority identified could be corrected, 3% 5% with relevant had or withdrawn due serious years. Nowadays, scientific community facing new threat. there reports several years ago fabrication manuscripts,2 beginning 2020 investigations showed existence so-called “paper mills”.3, 4 These paper mills seem act as commercially oriented “shadow companies” produce sell highly similar papers, mainly medical researchers who under high pressure publish. They operate by recycling text templates high-throughput setting falsified fabricated “stock images,” resulting share common features. contrast individual cheating one paper, this represents large-scale systematic sometimes difficult spot, it becomes evident when comparing across different publications from journals. Also here IJC, realized manipulation misconduct taking an ever-greater dimension than imagined. Over few too receiving increasing numbers manuscripts. report very irrational, unsophisticated study approaches lack clear hypothesis present way. Exemplarily, during 3 months 2021, suspicious poor constituted alarming 10% total submissions journal. follow established patterns (see Box 1) able match them originally described detectives. Each features* its own might alarming, appearing together point pattern. * Modified extended references 3-5 declared aim publish trustable data, help advance knowledge, build upon invalid results. Therefore, protect journal against publication fake implemented reinforced following handled strictly carry any suspicion originating mills. addition scrutinizing each submission hallmarks mill production plagiarism, require institutional e-mail addresses corresponding authors, original source valid documents, good English quality. Equally important solid sharing policy, assessment next-generation sequencing two policies recently enforced.6 We aware initiatives taken level single will completely stop eventually being As evolve, evolve ways target fields research. However, journal, undergo thorough scrutiny scientifically reputed editors, subsequently expert reviewers attain highest standards reliability. led editorial identification rejection multiple features, which generally below IJC. Indeed, low value, rationale, unjustified working hypothesis, controls (see, e.g., reference 7), exploit clearly inappropriate experimental procedures. wish emphasize potential customers vendors products risk losing money reputation they continue submit There general agreement purchasing pose great challenge work areas research, must combat threat applying stricter procedures.5, 8-10 Falsified lead pursuit wrong hypotheses subsequent waste resources misguide therapy development, significant economic damage health. Moreover, unethical practices may loss confidence research discredit stigmatize specific countries communities. It interest science adheres principles integrity. maintained vigorous concerted efforts journals, publishers, institutions, governments, should involve Committee Publication Ethics (COPE), leader supporting publishers ethics. play active role fight. take necessary actions current future activities, well weed out previous maintain standards; owe international community. grateful editors helpful suggestions, continuous involvement keeping