The Black Market of Publications in Peru: Paper Mills and Authorship for Sale

Abstract

The credit for authorship is the most common and significant means of recognising contributions in academic collaborations due to its impact on funding acquisition, staff evaluation, and academic career progression (Hosseini et al. 2024). However, the individualistic construction of authorship is a concept stemming from a reconceptualisation of the creative process (Jaszi and Woodmansee 2014). In academia, the ‘publish or perish’ phenomenon has shifted the overarching perspective on research processes—from being primarily dedicated to advancing human scientific, social, and cultural knowledge—to viewing the contribution of articles merely as transactional assets. In actual fact, within a society dominated by a ‘paper culture’, research and publication processes have been undermined by unethical practices. In scientific authorship, there are common ways of misconduct such as multiple unjustified authorship, ghostwriting, gift authorship, guest authorship, authorship under pressure. Additionally, other ways of misconduct such as team/group/consortium authorship and ‘authorship for sale’ have emerged latterly (Alhuay-Quispe 2023; Chirico and Bramstedt 2023; Hosseini et al. 2024).

Paper mills manufacture manuscripts that have never been written, where online enterprises sell authorship of the manuscripts and submit them to journals on behalf of the authors, often submitting to multiple journals simultaneously (Bricker-Anthony and Herzog 2023). On the other hand, part of fake and unethical publishers' business is related to the purchase and sale of scholarly articles (Sorooshian 2017). COPE and STM (2022) call ‘paper mill’ a commercial enterprise; evidently, some of them are significant and highly professional, offering authorship in exchange for a fee. A similar scientific authorship misconduct is ‘academic ghostwriting’ where they contract a writing service with plagiarism practices and significant alterations in authorship (Jung-Choi 2023). Guest and ghost authorship have been replaced by a business in which individuals can purchase authorship positions, and emerging companies create spurious articles or copy already-published ones; then they sell authorship of them (Smart 2023). Ghostwriting is a common unethical practice, specifically in biomedical journals, where a proliferation of industry-sponsored articles represents an important part of the pharmaceutical area (Yadav and Rawal 2018).

The proliferation of fake or manufactured papers is a problem for the world of academic research and publishing. It is estimated that 2% of submissions to scholarly journals across all disciplines come from paper mills, usually submitted by authors who have not previously published in an academic venue (Porter and McIntosh 2024). Furthermore, over 20% of the Retraction Watch database's documents have been retracted due to paper mill issues, despite being predominantly published in JCR second quartile journals (Candal-Pedreira et al. 2022).

Previous studies report papers allegedly produced by paper mills in different fields of academic research such as biological sciences, psychology, and related health sciences (Santos-d'Amorim et al. 2024). On a technological level, the increase of generative AI tools has further facilitated the production of fraudulent papers, thereby creating an opportunistic environment for fraudulent research (Elali and Rachid 2023). However, this increase in the use of generative AI appears to be impacting the traditional paper mill business model (Cortinhas and Deak 2023). From a geographical point of view, the most studied cases of paper mills and authorship commerce involve countries such as China, Russia, India, and Korea (Abalkina 2023; Candal-Pedreira et al. 2022; COPE and STM 2022). In China, a journalistic investigation published in 2013 revealed a thriving academic black market, with authorship payments ranging from USD 1,600 to USD 26,300 depending on the authorship (Hvistendahl 2013). In Russia, a website operating under a .ru domain has been monitored for offering authorship spaces at fees of up to USD 5,000 per scientific article, with at least 100 articles subsequently published in 68 journals from reputable publishers since 2019 (Chawla 2022). Likewise, Abalkina (2024) introduced the term indexjacking to describe the infiltration of hijackedjournals into indexing databases. In Korea, a medical society investigated papers with alleged authorship alterations from articles linked to an online company; this company was offering services such as writing, data analysis, manuscript drafting, journal selection, submission, and peer review (Jung-Choi 2023).

In this document, the authors define the paper mills environment through the following scenarios: (i) when a ghostwriter or a partially known individual (person A) offers or markets a paper for sale to the highest bidder via colleagues or intermediaries; (ii) when another individual (Person B) acquires authorship of a manuscript that is either ready for submission or already accepted; and (iii) when a third party (PersonC) or a company acts as an intermediary between Persons A and B. Involvement in any of these scenarios implies participation in paper mills or ‘paper farms’. At the United2Act Summit (COPE and STM 2023), journal publishers, universities and research institutes agreed on five key actions to address the paper mill problem: promoting education and awareness, improving post-publication corrections, conducting research on paper mills, fostering the development of trust markers, and encouraging open dialogue.

In Peru, since the implementation of the University Law in 2016, the increased pressure to publish has led faculty—often inexperienced in drafting scholarly articles—to opt for predatory journals or conferences (Sotomayor-Beltran 2020).

In 2018, a study reported that economic incentives related to academic research ranged from 500 to 13,000 soles—or approximately USD 150 to USD 3,500—in five non-public Peruvian universities. These economic incentives varied according to the article type, the indexing database, or the journal quartile (Nieto-Gutierrez et al. 2018).

In 2022, a research report states that 7 (out of 9) Peruvian universities included in the SIR Ranking 2020 had articles published in fraudulent journals between 2015 and 2019 (Sotomayor-Beltran and Zarate Segura 2022).

In 2023, two mass media outlets—a weekly magazine called ‘Hildebrandt en sus trece’¹ and the television program called ‘Punto final’², broadcasted on Latina Televisión channel–revealed the growing proliferation of a black market in which books, theses, and scientific articles are sold through authorship financial transactions.

In May 2023, as the first case, the journalist Ricardo Velazco (Hildebrandt en sus trece 2023) revealed that: ‘two Peruvian companies have been tasked with fabricating authors and reputations in exchange for a hefty price. They manufacture books, articles, essays, and theses (…)’. Velazco (2023) notes that the cost of acquiring authorship of a book, thesis, or scientific article ranges from 7,000 to 12,000 soles (approximately USD 1,900 to USD 3,000).

Another case, reported in two television segments from October 2023, exposed the commerce of authorship through instant messaging groups (Telegram and WhatsApp). The manuscripts offered correspond to articles already accepted in prestigious journals. Therefore, these offers provide the highest bidder with details such as the subject (or tentative title), the available co-authorship positions, and the associated costs, where the first authorship position is typically the most expensive or reserved for the primary author (Hidalgo 2023).

As a consequence, legislative changes were promoted. In November 2023, Congressman Edward Málaga proposed two bills to classify authorship trafficking and other fraudulent research practices as serious offences, leading to the suspension of up to 5 years and, in severe cases, the expulsion of the involved researcher from the Sinacti system (Perú Congreso TV 2024). In February 2024, Congressman Carlos Zeballos proposed an amendment to Article No. 196 of the Peruvian Penal Code, stipulating that those who commit fraud—thus obtaining illicit profits at the expense of the scientific community—could face prison sentences ranging from 1 to 6 years (McCubbin 2024). Finally, in March 2024, CONCYTEC, the governing body of STI in Peru, approved the new National Code of Scientific Integrity, specifying that authorship by purchase and sale is included as a type of scientific fraud (CONCYTEC 2024).

A recent report—conducted by an Investigative Commission of the Congress of the Republic of Peru from November 30, 2023, to August 1, 2024—documented alleged scientific fraud through the purchase and sale of academic research. The report identifies three possible criminal networks responsible for transactions amounting to 11.42 million soles (approximately USD 3.05 million). This report also provided evidence about WhatsApp groups that were offering co-authorship of articles, identifying Peruvian research professors as owners. These groups, named ‘Articles in Scopus’ and ‘Publish Scopus’, offer authorship positions for inclusion in Q1 and Q2 journals.

Two particular cases with evidence of authorship purchase were detected. In the first case, the author stated having paid USD 550 to appear as a co-author in a study; however, the article was subsequently published on the website of a ‘cloned journal’ that mimics the name of a Chilean journal (Congreso de la República del Perú 2024; Hidalgo 2023); consequently, this article was never published in a legitimate or formal journal and will not be included in any citation database. In the second case, an Argentinian journal was implicated in a fraudulent process involving a falsified acceptance letter and a transfer voucher provided by an intermediary, but the editor of the journal affirmed that he received both documents via WhatsApp a person claiming responsibility for the publication of the paper, after having paid USD 400 for the publication paper (Congreso de la República del Perú 2024).

Additionally, this report mentions the names of 75 faculty members and individuals certified as researchers (referred to as RENACYT in Spanish) by CONCYTEC from Peruvian universities who are potentially involved in paper mills and the sale of authorship. Their ORCID and Scopus author IDs were used to retrieve publications from Scopus in order to analyse the co-authorship network. This analysis, based on 866 documents, reveals a collaborative network that includes researchers from several Asian countries—such as India, Iraq, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Pakistan– as well as from Latin America, including Mexico, Argentina, Cuba, Ecuador, Venezuela, Brazil (Figure 1).

Table 1 shows that nearly one quarter of the documents published (169 out of 866) by these authors—allegedly associated with ‘paper mills’—were published in 37 journals that have since been discontinued from Scopus (Elsevier 2024). Most of these journals are published in India (6 titles), Venezuela (4), the United States (4), Brazil (4), Turkey (3), the United Kingdom (3), Spain (3), Canada (2), and other countries with one journal each.

Researchers and institutions prioritise certain types of manuscripts—such as conference and editorials—to increase their output (Mayta-Tristán and Borja-García 2023). Future efforts by research dependencies should focus on evaluating the quality of papers produced by their professors and lecturers (Sotomayor-Beltran 2020).

Based on evidence of paper mills involving Peruvian academics, legal actions are underway, including bill initiatives to classify scientific fraud as a criminal offence in the Civil Code (Congress of the Republic of Peru 2024). Although CONCYTEC updated the National Integrity Code in 2024, modifications to the regulations governing Peruvian researchers (RENACYT) remain pending, entailing substantial changes regarding the origin of publications and the allocation of project funding. Authorities and research departments at Peruvian universities are also expected to conduct thorough investigations and impose sanctions on faculty members found to be involved in scientific fraud.

Finally, governmental actions and STI policies in Peru could partially curb these unethical scientific practices—which aim to increase scientific production and obtain economic incentives—if the value of research contributions and the recognition of publications are redefined beyond a sole focus on ‘papers’ in indexed journals, as it is now understood that this does not guarantee a reputable academic trajectory. However, given the entrenched ‘publish or perish’ culture in universities, these practices are likely to persist through alternative methodologies unless more stringent sanctions and comprehensive monitoring of research and publication-related misconduct are implemented by universities, government entities, and funding agencies. Future research could also explore the characteristics of funded or APC-fee subsidised manuscripts published in questionable journals, as well as analyse other research activities and financed outputs that may originate from fraudulent practices, such as patents and even research projects.

All authors contributed equally to the conceptual design, writing, and editing, and took responsibility for the content of this paper.

The authors have nothing to report.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.