A special welcome to everyone who visited the SMC Media booth at ISTH 2026 in Paris. It was a pleasure to meet you, and we are delighted to have you among our new readers!
Between the Lines was created as a practical guide to help researchers and publishing professionals navigate the academic publishing landscape and make informed decisions.
If you work in research or academic publishing, this space is for you.

Whether you have been with us from the beginning or discovered us in Paris, welcome aboard!

Paper Mills — the invisible threat to research credibility

What are paper mills?

Paper mills are commercial organizations that produce fake or manipulated scientific manuscripts to sell to researchers who are under pressure to publish as much as possible, often to avoid career stagnation. These articles may include falsified data, “for-sale” co-authors, misleadingly generated graphs, or simply repetitive texts presented as original results.

Why the phenomenon has grown

In recent years, the combination of strong publication incentives, metrics tied to careers and funding, and increasingly sophisticated generative artificial intelligence tools has turned the problem into a near-industrial production system. In some fields, such as oncology research, up to 10–15% of publications over the past 25 years — even in high-impact journals — share title and abstract similarities with retracted paper mill articles.

Consequences for the scientific community

There are many risks associated with the growth of this phenomenon. First of all there is the risk to scientific integrity as fraudulent publications can contaminate the body of reliable literature.
Another aspect to consider is the fact that publishers and reviewers must handle ever-growing volumes of potentially false submissions.
Finally, the spread of false data can trigger chain reactions in research, funding decisions, and the setting of scientific priorities.

How can the phenomenon be countered?

Current approaches include:

• Automated screening systems using algorithms and artificial intelligence
• Stronger checks on the origin of data and images
• Collective initiatives among publishers and institutions to share warning signals
• Evaluation policies that prioritize quality and rigor over quantity of publications

In summary, paper mills are no longer a marginal issue. Editorial and academic communities must strengthen cooperation to safeguard research credibility and public trust in science.

China halts funding for excessively high APCs

The Chinese Academy of Sciences has announced a significant change in its scientific publication funding policies. Starting from March 1, 2026, the institution will prohibit the use of central funds to cover APCs (Article Processing Charges) for open access journals that charge very high fees (above approximately USD 5,000).

The move — which affects publications such as Nature Communications and Science Advances — aims to curb rising costs and encourage more sustainable, domestic publishing alternatives. Discussion among Chinese researchers revolves around the potential consequences for career progression, international visibility, and publication competitiveness.

SOURCE

Publishers intercept thousands of suspicious articles each month

According to a recent study, publishers are stepping up efforts to stop fraud before publication. It is estimated that around 1,000 suspicious submissions from paper mills are blocked every month, thanks to stricter checks and collaboration between publishing houses.

The goal is to shift the focus from post-publication corrections to proactive prevention, intercepting manuscripts built on manipulated data or fraudulent schemes. However, experts warn that the scale of these systems still needs to expand to keep pace with the growing spread of suspicious articles.

SOURCE

Neuroscience journal editor quits over AI peer review takeover

Michael Okun, associate professor of Neuroscience at the University of Nottingham, resigned from Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience, which he served as Editor for, after the publisher's Artificial Intelligence (AI) system overrode his selection of peer reviewers — and officials told him they couldn't turn it off.

The culprit was Frontiers' Artificial Intelligence Research Assistant (AIRA), which automatically identifies and contacts potential reviewers. While handling a manuscript, Okun found that AIRA had invited unqualified referees behind his back — and when one of his own chosen experts finally accepted, the system revoked his remaining invitations entirely.

At least one other Editor, Shuzo Sakata of the University of Strathclyde, reported a similar experience, saying the system invited a reviewer even after he had decided to reject a manuscript.

Frontiers CEO Frederick Fenter defended AIRA, noting it has reduced reviewer recruitment time by 30 percent, and said an internal review is underway to address the communication breakdown in Okun's case.

Okun says he supports AI assistance in peer review — but only with humans clearly in charge.

SOURCE