By Silverio García-Lara and Jorge Luis Díaz
Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that a scientific journal formally retracted an influential article published in 2000, which had concluded that glyphosate — an herbicide widely used in agriculture — posed no risk to human health. After undisclosed conflicts of interest in its authorship were uncovered, both its independence and the validity of its conclusions were invalidated.
Public trust in science is facing an unprecedented crisis, fueled by the massive discovery of fraud in scientific publications. Between 2015 and 2025, the annual number of retracted articles rose from approximately 1,000 to more than 10,000, representing a 900% increase in less than a decade.
This wave of retractions has called into question the integrity of the editorial system, affecting the credibility of researchers, institutions, and funding agencies.
Although retraction is a legitimate mechanism for correcting errors, its exponential growth reveals systemic failures in peer review and editorial processes. Recent research has documented the role of organized fraud networks, known as “paper mills,” that fabricate fake articles and submit them to journals through manipulated review processes. Understanding the magnitude of the problem and its implications is essential to preserving the relevance of scientific research.
A Global Problem
According to the Retraction Watch Database, the countries with the highest number of retractions between 2015 and 2025 are China (22,574; 45.8%), India (3,309; 6.7%), the United States (2,655; 5.4%), Russia (2,651; 5.4%), and Iran (1,006; 2%), together accounting for 60% of reported cases. Causes include data falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, and purchased authorship. In some cases, researchers have paid thousands of dollars to be listed as authors on fraudulent articles.
Most alarming is the trend: the growth rate of fraudulent science surpasses that of legitimate science. Some studies (Amaral et al., 2025; Tang & Cai, 2025) estimate that the output of paper mills doubles every 1.5 years and warn that, without urgent measures, the scientific literature could become “completely contaminated.” It is also estimated that nearly 3,000 systematic reviews include at least one paper mill article as a reference. The countries where most of these articles are produced are China, Russia, India, Iran, and Latvia.
Most Affected Disciplines and Institutions
It is therefore evident that scientific truthfulness is at risk. Among the research areas most affected by this type of fraudulent articles are oncology, biomedicine, bioengineering, clinical medicine, and engineering (physics). However, fraud also impacts basic disciplines such as molecular biology and psychology. Mid- and low-impact journals are especially vulnerable due to less rigorous review processes and business models based on publication fees.
Among the institutions with the highest number of retractions are highly productive centers such as Zhejiang University (China), Harvard University (USA), and the Indian Institute of Science. However, less well-known universities have also been identified as being involved in networks of self-citation and large-scale data manipulation.
The Problem in Mexico
Mexico ranks 60th worldwide in the number of retracted articles. Between 2015 and 2025, 51 cases were recorded in indexed journals. The institutions with the most retractions are UNAM (17), CINVESTAV (12), IPN (10), and Tecnológico de Monterrey (2), among others. Although the volume is lower than in other countries, the upward trend concerns the Mexican scientific community, especially given the use of public resources in compromised projects.
Main Causes of Scientific Fraud
- Pressure to publish: The academic system rewards quantity over quality, encouraging questionable practices.
- Manipulation of metrics: Excessive self-citation, citation cartels, and falsification of indices distort academic prestige.
- Commercialization of authorship: Paying to be listed as an author or to accelerate reviews has created a parallel market for publications or productivity.
- Weak culture of integrity: Lack of ethical training and ineffective committees favor the repetition of misconduct.
- Failures in peer review: Reviewer overload and editorial bias allow fraudulent articles to pass through.
Consequences of the Credibility Crisis
The credibility crisis in scientific research has profound consequences. On the one hand, it leads to a waste of resources, as public and private funds are allocated to research that lacks real value or whose results are unreliable. At the same time, this situation generates health and social risks, since public policies and institutional decisions based on false studies can directly affect the population. Finally, this crisis of trust results in reputational damage to the institutions involved, jeopardizing their agreements, academic rankings, and ability to attract and retain talent.
How to Restore Integrity and Trust?
The crisis of credibility in science demands a collective, determined, and structural response. Restoring trust in scientific research is vital not only for advancing knowledge but also for public policy formulation, technological innovation, and addressing major global challenges. Scientific integrity is non-negotiable: it is the foundation upon which the future is built.
Responding to the scientific credibility crisis must translate into concrete and sustained actions. Some key recommendations include:
- Strengthening ethics committees: Institutions must have independent and transparent bodies.
- Robust peer review: It is advisable to use plagiarism detection tools, random reviewer assignment, and monitoring of author-suggested reviewers.
- Continuous ethics training: Mandatory graduate courses and regular workshops.
- Revision of metrics: Methodological quality should be prioritized over quantity, and clear sanctions should be applied.
- International cooperation: Participation in initiatives such as COPE and Retraction Watch allows for sharing alerts and best practices.
References
- Amaral, O. B., Neves, K., & Oliveira, A. (2025). The rise of paper mills and the contamination of scientific literature. Science Integrity Journal, 12(1), 45–59.
- Retraction Watch Database. (2024). Annual retraction statistics and misconduct reports. Retrieved from https://retractionwatch.com
- COPE. (2023). Committee on Publication Ethics: Guidelines and best practices. Retrieved from https://publicationethics.org
- Aibar, E. (2025). Metrics and manipulation in academic publishing. Journal of Scholarly Communication, 17(3), 210–225.
- Tang, G., & Cai, H. (2025). Citation contamination by paper mill articles in systematic reviews of the life sciences. JAMA Network Open, 8(6), e2515160. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.15160
- Nature. (2021). Industrial-scale cheating in scientific publishing. Nature, 598, 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02785-9
Authors
Silverio García-Lara is a research professor in the Department of Bioengineering at the School of Engineering and Sciences at Tecnológico de Monterrey. He is a Level 3 member of the National System of Researchers.
Jorge Luis Díaz Gómez is a professor at the School of Medicine and Health Sciences at Tecnológico de Monterrey. He holds a PhD in Biotechnology and is a Candidate-level member of the National System of Researchers.
Author’s Note
Artificial intelligence (DeepSeek, 2025) was used in this text to support its structure, refine concepts, and edit the final version
