摘要：

【目的】通过深入探究论文作坊的现状及其涉及的学术不端行为,分析论文作坊的特点、行迹和危害,进而设计系统有效的甄别方法,防范论文作坊的滋蔓。【方法】使用Python对撤稿观察数据库中涉嫌论文作坊的撤稿进行撤稿时间趋势和国别对比分析,并采用案例分析法对国家自然科学基金委员会、撤稿观察网站公布的多个典型案例进行分析。【结果】近年来由论文作坊引起的国际期刊集体撤稿事件频发,被撤稿的作坊论文数量激增,且绝大多数来源于中国学者。论文作坊常通过抄袭剽窃、数据造假、图片重复使用、大规模同行评议造假、不当署名、基金标注不实、一稿多投和重复发表等手段作伪,既会损害科学的独创性,割裂署名的权责关系,还会增加审稿和撤稿环节的时间成本和经济成本,甚至对地域的学术声誉造成重创。【结论】论文作坊近年来有上升势头,且以中国为甚。这种“作坊式作弊”涉及多种学术不端行为,积弊綦深、为害甚烈。可根据写稿、投稿和撤稿环节的异常情况对作坊论文予以甄别。写稿环节数据来源异常,修图痕迹明显;内容质量粗劣,专业素养缺失。投稿过程操作混乱,代投痕迹明显。面对质疑和撤稿问询,作者往往选择消极推诿而非积极申诉;邮件交流中英文表达不畅,回复内容空洞浮泛。

关键词: 论文作坊, 撤销论文, 学术不端

Abstract:

[Purposes] By thoroughly discussing and analyzing the status quo, characteristics, tracks, harms,and academic misconducts of paper mills, this study is designed to develop systematic and effective screening methods to prevent the spread of paper mills. [Methods] The paper analyzed the withdrawal time trend and country comparison of mill papers in Retraction Watch Database with Python and a number of typical cases published by National Natural Science Foundation of China and Retraction Watch with case analysis method. [Findings] The collective retractions of international journals caused by paper mills occurred frequently in recent years, and most of these articles were written by Chinese scholars. Paper mills adopt plenty methods, including plagiarism, data falsification, image reuse, large-scale peer review fraud, inappropriate authorship, false labeling of fund projects, multiple submissions, and repeated publication. These unjustified means damage the originality of science, separate the rights and responsibilities of the signature, increase the time and financial cost of reviewing and withdrawing papers, and even heavily reduce the academic reputation of local academia. [Conclusions] In recent years, paper mills have grown further in China. We believe that mill papers can be identified by the traces they left in the process of writing, submitting, and withdrawing. In the process of writing, the data source is vague and image retouching is obvious. The content quality of mill papers is poor, and professional accomplishment is lacking. In the process of submission, the contributor's operation is chaotic. When confronted with challenging, the author tends to shirk passively rather than appeal actively. E-mail communication in English is not smooth, and the reply content is empty and vague.

Key words: Paper mill, Retraction paper, Academic misconduct