Collaboration is one of the cornerstones of research. A conversation over coffee becomes a project, a shared dataset turns into a publication, and new partnerships often lead to exciting discoveries. But what happens when a seemingly harmless collaboration starts to feel... forced? (Spoiler alert: not every invitation to contribute to a manuscript is as straightforward as it appears.) This month's Researcher Riddle explores how paper mills can recruit authors through seemingly legitimate collaborations, blurring the line between professional networking and publication misconduct. 

You are probably already familiar with the concept, but paper mills are organizations or individuals that produce and sell fraudulent manuscripts, authorship positions, or publication services for profit. While researchers may imagine paper mills operating through obvious scams (or used deliberately by unethical or desperate researchers...), recruitment can be far more subtle. It often begins with a reasonable request: reviewing a draft, improving the language, analysing data, or suggesting references. Over time, researchers may find themselves increasingly involved in a project with unclear origins, questionable data, or unexpected authorship offers. Recognising these warning signs early is critical, especially because responsibility for a publication extends to all listed authors, regardless of how they joined the project.  

However, as it happens to be in many instances in life, we all secretly think "that could never be me, I would never fall for a paper mill scam". Hopefully not, but to check, test yourself with the following scenario.  

Imagine the following events happen to you. At what point would you start feeling suspicious enough that the situation deserves closer scrutiny? 

1. You meet a researcher at a conference. You have a great conversation about your respective work, exchange contact details, and agree to stay in touch.
   B. A few weeks later, they contact you with a manuscript that aligns closely with your expertise. They ask if you would be willing to review it and suggest improvements before submission.
   C. You provide comments on the draft, recommend a few references, and clarify some technical details. The researcher is grateful and says your input significantly improved the manuscript. 
   D. They send a revised version and tell you they would like to add you as a co-author because of your valuable contributions. You are surprised but pleased by the recognition. 
   E. As you review the new draft, you notice several additional authors have appeared on the paper. You do not recognize any of the names, and no explanation is given for their involvement. 
   F. You ask for more information about the study design, data collection, and the contributions of the author team. The responses are vague and avoid answering your questions directly. 
   G. The researcher reassures you that "everything has already been taken care of," encourages you not to worry about the details, and asks you to approve the final version quickly so the paper can be submitted. 

[image description: Digitally generated image of robotic hands controlling marionette puppet using strings. ] 

There is a correct answer in this scenario, although not everyone may recognise the warning signs at the same stage. The correct answer is D! Once authorship is offered despite a limited contribution to the research itself, researchers should carefully assess whether recognised authorship criteria have been met. In the cases where the criteria for authorship have not been met, the right response would be to decline but indicate you'd be delighted to be acknowledged for your contribution, in line with the ICMJE criteria.  

Some individuals may only become concerned at E, F, or G, when additional patterns emerge that suggest a lack of transparency. While the earlier events may be consistent with legitimate academic collaboration, the appearance of unexplained authors, unclear information about data and methods, and pressure to approve a manuscript without adequate oversight are all red flags that warrant careful scrutiny. Asking for clarification when things do not seem right is also an important step in assessing whether a collaboration is legitimate and aligned with responsible research practices. 

Of course, not every unusual situation indicates a paper mill. Research projects evolve, authors can join at different stages, and communication is not always perfect. In addition, some junior authors may not be aware of appropriate authorship criteria, and may just be offering homage and gratitude, albeit not in the right way. However, transparency around contributions, data, methods, and authorship decisions is essential. When concerns cannot be satisfactorily resolved, researchers should not accept authorship. Upholding established authorship standards helps protect both individual researchers and the integrity of the scholarly record. 

You may wonder why someone would be added as an author without being asked for money. The presence of researchers with a good reputation in an author list lends credence and assurance to a manuscript, increasing the likelihood of eventual publication with that stamp of legitimacy. Others can then be asked for money to publish with you, a renowned individual with a good track record! To do this, paper mills often rely on ambiguity, pressure, and opportunities that seem too good to be true. Developing a strong understanding of authorship responsibilities, publication ethics, and common integrity red flags can help researchers navigate these situations with confidence. If you'd like to explore this topic further, check out our resources on Avoiding Paper Mills as an Author, Predatory Publishers, and our past Researcher Riddle on Paper Mills. Our training courses and guidance materials provide practical strategies for evaluating collaborations, asking the right questions, and safeguarding the integrity of your research before your name appears on a publication.