ºìÌÒÊÓƵ

For every published article there are the many untold stories of less successful submissions. Whether a manuscript is published or not though, the same resources and time are afforded. This is the accepted cost of providing constructive feedback from editors and reviewers, and for maintaining a useful and reliable scientific record.

Of those unsuccessful submissions, there is a particular cohort with less honest intent. Organised fraudulent networks, built on a combination of fake and low-quality papers, fabricated authors, and unreliable reviewers, exist to prey on (or provide a service to) those authors most affected by the publish-or-perish academic ecosystem.

The publishing and research community's and . Authorship-for-sale papermills in particular have been a recognised problem for a decade now. In that time, have developed the means of identifying and reporting problems in the published literature and, crucially, spotting red flags before a submission enters the literature. Despite these efforts, these issues still present a daily struggle.

In 2025, one of ºìÌÒÊÓƵ journals received, and rejected, approximately 9% of submissions on account of suspected papermill activity. This was an increase on the previous year, and 2026 has already passed the 2025 figure.

Royal Society Publishing’s new steps in research integrity

In the face of these prevalent and growing issues, this year ºìÌÒÊÓƵ Publishing journals expanded their submission screening capabilities with the portfolio of research integrity tools organised by the .

These tools aim to root out papermill submissions, as well as other forms of dubious activity, such as citation manipulation and AI misuse. Users of the Hub also benefit from shared information, such as in instances of simultaneous submission of the same paper to different journals. This collaborative approach might prove crucial for combating these systematic threats.

The Integrity Hub tools complement our existing screening approaches, including plagiarism checks (via ) and detecting suspicious user activity in the submission and peer review system, . This is in combination with more holistic approaches to research integrity, such as our commitment to open science.

Human judgement remains in place; no tool is informing a decision without verification. Though screening for misconduct is becoming more automated, there remains a tasked with interpreting these new tools and signals.

may inflame these existing problems and create new challenges that demand more attention and new resources. Reducing avoidable burden on the peer review system and maintaining trust in the scientific record are essential targets though, so these are investments worth making.

As new challenges emerge, Royal Society Publishing will continue to review and strengthen its approach to research integrity. Our updated AI policy reflects our commitment to responsible research and publishing practices, helping to ensure that new technologies are used transparently and appropriately.