About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Eisai Cuts Back | Main | Merck's Drug Development in The New Yorker »

December 2, 2013

Authorship For Sale. Papers For Sale. Everything For Sale.

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Academic publishing fraud in China has come up here before, but Science has an in-depth look at the problem. And a big problem it is:

"There are some authors who don't have much use for their papers after they're published, and they can be transferred to you," a sales agent for a company called Wanfang Huizhi told a Science reporter posing as a scientist. Wanfang Huizhi, the agent explained, acts as an intermediary between researchers with forthcoming papers in good journals and scientists needing to snag publications. The company would sell the title of co–first author on the cancer paper for 90,000 yuan ($14,800). Adding two names—co–first author and co–corresponding author—would run $26,300, with a deposit due upon acceptance and the rest on publication. A purported sales document from Wanfang Huizhi obtained by Science touts the convenience of this kind of arrangement: "You only need to pay attention to your academic research. The heavy labor can be left to us. Our service can help you make progress in your academic path!"

For anyone who cares about science and research, this is revolting. If you care a lot more about climbing that slippery ladder up to a lucrative position, though, it might be just the thing, right? There are all sorts of people ready to help you realize your dreams, too:

The options include not just paying for an author's slot on a paper written by other scientists but also self-plagiarizing by translating a paper already published in Chinese and resubmitting it in English; hiring a ghostwriter to compose a paper from faked or independently gathered data; or simply buying a paper from an online catalog of manuscripts—often with a guarantee of publication.

Offering these services are brokers who hawk titles and SCI paper abstracts from their perches in China; individuals such as a Chinese graduate student who keeps a blog listing unpublished papers for sale; fly-by-night operations that advertise online; and established companies like Wanfang Huizhi that also offer an array of above-board services, such as arranging conferences and producing tailor-made coins and commemorative stamps. Agencies boast at conferences that they can write papers for scientists who lack data. They cold-call journal editors. They troll for customers in chat programs. . .

The journal contacted 27 agencies in China, with reporters posing as graduate students or other scientists, and asked about paying to get on a list of authors or paying to have a paper written up from scratch. 22 of them were ready to help with either or both. Many of these were to be placed in Chinese-language journals, but for a higher fee you could get into more international titles as well. Because of Chinese institutional insistence on high-impact-factor journal publications, people who can deliver that kind of publication can charge as much as a young professor's salary. (Since some institutions turn around and pay a bonus for such publications, though, it can still be feasible).

Some agencies claim they not only prepare and submit papers for a client: They furnish the data as well. "IT'S UNBELIEVABLE: YOU CAN PUBLISH SCI PAPERS WITHOUT DOING EXPERIMENTS," boasts a flashing banner on Sciedit's website.

One timesaver: a ready stock of abstracts at hand for clients who need to get published fast. Jiecheng Editing and Translation entices clients on its website with titles of papers that only lack authors. An agency representative told an undercover Science reporter that the company buys data from a national laboratory in Hunan province.

The article goes on to show that there are many Chinese scientists that are trying to do something about all this. I hope that they succeed, but it's going to take a lot of work to realign the incentives. Unless this happens, though, the Chinese-language scientific literature risks finding itself devolving into a bad joke, and papers from Chinese institutions risk having to go through extra levels of scrutiny when submitted abroad.

Comments (29) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: The Dark Side | The Scientific Literature


1. Anon on December 2, 2013 10:36 AM writes...

Sounds like Big Pharma.

Permalink to Comment

2. NMH on December 2, 2013 10:54 AM writes...

Recently I have noticed on Google Scholar Chinese authors (with affiliations to academic institutions in China) taking credit for a publication where there name is listed on the authorship, but I strongly suspect someone else did with the same name. So, for s certain author list of publications, you have papers that include say, cancer biology and then also solid-state physics.

How can ANY paper from China in an American journal be trusted?

Permalink to Comment

3. anon on December 2, 2013 12:33 PM writes...

It really appears as though many Chinese journals are collections of fabrications for career advancement, not a place for the advancement of science. And I thought the US was corrupt

Permalink to Comment

4. wei on December 2, 2013 1:22 PM writes...

is it just another model of CRO or staffing service? The person who "funds" the project gets the credit, and should be also responsible for QA (to guard against foul play)

Permalink to Comment

5. K on December 2, 2013 1:55 PM writes...


Google Scholar automatically populates your references when you set it up. If you are not diligent when setting up Google Scholar, you may accidentally list papers that were not yours.


Permalink to Comment

6. HFM on December 2, 2013 4:00 PM writes...

To be fair, if there's real science in the papers, this is just a creative funding mechanism.

If there are N authors who paid for the privilege, all of whom paid good money (say $10K US), that's approaching R01 range for the real authors even at modest N. This money is ultimately coming from the government, in the form of bounties for publication.

That may not be the intent of such bounties, but what is measured improves...

Permalink to Comment

7. Hap on December 2, 2013 4:10 PM writes...

I wonder if this will furnish a novel fraud/plagiarism argument - "I didn't fake the data, the people I paid to put my name on the paper did."

Permalink to Comment

8. Curryworks on December 2, 2013 4:49 PM writes...

This honestly was a business model I wanted to establish but I would associate with an open accesses publishing journal to make money on both ends

Permalink to Comment

9. Laurent Wada on December 2, 2013 5:53 PM writes...

Am I the only one surprised at how cheap a first-author spot is? $14,000!? That's it!?

Permalink to Comment

10. Anonymous on December 2, 2013 6:43 PM writes...

This is what happens when you bring capitalism to a country that never had it: They get better at it than we are, and then we complain. It's like how the English invented and introduced various sports like soccer, cricket and rugby to countries which then beat them at their own game.

Permalink to Comment

11. Garrett Kajmowicz on December 2, 2013 6:55 PM writes...

> For anyone who cares about science and research,
> this is revolting.

I don't get this at all. If the data and experimental results are valid, then it really doesn't matter who's name is on the paper.
If the data or experimental results are fraudulent, then the best you can do is look at other papers published by the same authors to see if they are fraudulent.
In neither case is the name attached truly useful. A paper shouldn't be true because it is from a good source (ad hominum fallacy).
Likewise for people who are looking for grants - there's no guarantee that somebody who's proposing an experiment is going to do a good job next time. (Appeal to accomplishments).

In many ways this blows holes (again) in peer-review. These papers can only be junk if nobody attempts to reproduce them.

Permalink to Comment

12. Anonymous on December 2, 2013 7:01 PM writes...

@11: Good point. In fact perhaps a free market for authorship may actually improve the quality of research papers from China, since nobody wants to tarnish their own reputation (and especially not pay to tarnish their reputation!) by linking their name to poor quality or fraudulent research.

Just a thought.

Permalink to Comment

13. Pennpenn on December 2, 2013 7:09 PM writes...

Just out of curiosity, is the last sentence in the second quote meant to be "They troll for customers in chat programs..."? It seems more likely that they'd "trawl for customers" (search diligently or exhaustively for customers), rather than "troll for customers" (agitate and antagonise on behalf of customers).

Of course I could be wrong.

Permalink to Comment

14. Curt F. on December 2, 2013 7:20 PM writes...

@13. Pennpenn. I think "troll" is correct. Trolling refers to fishing by dangling a baited line (or lines) in the water while moving at a slow speed. Trawling refers to fishing by hawling nets behind a vessel with no bait. The presence of a bait is important for the linguistic metaphor. Google "trolling motor" for more info (and Google trolling trawling motor for lots of threads where people are debating the exact same point, it seems to come up a lot).

Permalink to Comment

15. Ayn Rand on December 2, 2013 9:50 PM writes...

@ 12

I obviously agree with you!

Permalink to Comment

16. Piero on December 3, 2013 2:36 AM writes...

@11, @12

Just wait that someone who paid to have autorship walks past and over you in a competition for a work place....

Permalink to Comment

17. sepisp on December 3, 2013 3:04 AM writes...

This might be less of a problem if the recruiting process worked. But, in academic evaluation, degrees and bibliometrics have become *more* important, not less. Bonuses are placed on getting degrees and papers fast, everything else be damned. You get someone who can play the numbers game well, but that doesn't guarantee any relevant experience, i.e. a well-rounded professional.

Unfortunately, there's a lot of science and research that is not as efficient at generating this "karma" as an university research group aiming explicitly at higher Hirsch indices. This sort of policy puts corporate labs, government jobs, teaching, industrial management, etc. at a disadvantage. This tends to insulate the academia from the rest of the world, if you can't advance from industry to academia.

Case in point, in the 1990s we had a professor that didn't even have a doctoral degree(!). But, he had decades of experience in the private sector, and was an internationally respected expert in the field. Unsurpringly, he was an excellent professor. Today, he couldn't be hired for any other position than doctoral student. The experience, expertise, etc. count for nothing.

Permalink to Comment

18. mass_speccer on December 3, 2013 5:00 AM writes...

Wasn't there a Kickstarter (or similar) project a year or so ago that was trying to fund some research and offered authorship on a paper at the higher pledge levels?

Another thing that seems to have been come less rare is papers from Chinese groups with one British/American author on. I've never been convinced that they've done a significant amount of the work - it seems to look like they're there to make the paper look more convincing.

Permalink to Comment

19. Forget it on December 3, 2013 5:18 AM writes...

I wonder where this money, to buy the first authorship, fits in my next funding proposals, consumables or publication cost!

Permalink to Comment

20. Sandro on December 3, 2013 7:41 AM writes...

@11, 12: "If the data and results are valid". Well, isn't that the point? If those guys are already selling fake autorship and purchase data from subcontracting labs, I can only imagine that some data points that are a bit too far off the trendline will be forgotten... And I wouldn't be suprised if there were also one or two photoshop experts in such labs and companies...

Permalink to Comment

21. Anonymous on December 3, 2013 8:14 AM writes...

@16,20: Since all parties (employers, employees, scientists, authors, publishers, institutions, etc.) are/would all be part of the same free market, better quality papers would benefit all parties as equilibrium is established in the long term. It is only when certain parties act in their own self interests at the expense of others that problems occur in the short term, but these problems will be resolved as equilibrium is restored in the long term. In other words, cheats eventually lose out as their reputation is tarnished.

Permalink to Comment

22. The Iron Chemist on December 3, 2013 8:45 AM writes...

@12: "since nobody wants to tarnish their own reputation (and especially not pay to tarnish their reputation!) by linking their name to poor quality or fraudulent research"

You're either being sarcastic or you haven't been keeping up to date with the state of open-access publishing.

Permalink to Comment

23. eugene on December 3, 2013 9:39 AM writes...

"I don't get this at all. If the data and experimental results are valid, then it really doesn't matter who's name is on the paper."

Like someone mentioned before, it matters for promotions and establishes a corrupt system where unqualified people get bigger and bigger jobs at the expense of real scientists, until they eventually decide on the fate of the research money, and will probably send it down the drain due to incompetence.

Another small problem is that you will not be able to contact the corresponding author if you have any questions about the paper, as they will probably know nothing since they actually didn't do the research.

Permalink to Comment

24. Slurpy on December 3, 2013 10:39 AM writes...

@9. Laurent Wada

Really? I thought $14k was exorbitantly high - certainly *I* can't afford to be a first author like that.

Permalink to Comment

25. Helical Investor on December 3, 2013 10:46 AM writes...

Kind of makes you long for the good old days when all it took to get published was accept Elena Ceaușescu as a coauthor.

Permalink to Comment

26. pgwu on December 3, 2013 10:52 AM writes...

The data could also be sold to virtual biotechs which then repackage as novel products to big pharmas. In an essence, they are all mercs, monetizing everything along the way.

Permalink to Comment

27. Hap on December 3, 2013 12:04 PM writes...

It would also present a problem if you're a Chinese student interested in doing science (where do you learn how to be a scientist if the big labs where you might want to work and which are actually being funded aren't actually doing the work?) or if you're a domestic or foreign company or school looking to hire students or professors from such a system (how do you know if they know what their publications are claiming they know?)

It would seem to hose almost everyone entangled with such a system, or at least to set up incentives for the most corrupt to succeed. I don't think that will work out well in the long run.

As a side note, do such companies exist in the US, and if they do, how many are there?

Permalink to Comment

28. Thirunelvely on December 5, 2013 1:45 PM writes...

I am not surprised. Its all about (wrong) incentives: you want recognition through high impact papers, need tenure, consulting agreements, and grants that only count papers on high impact journals? Well you got to pay for it! PERFECT CAPITALIST MECHANISM! (anybody remember sub-prime loans by major banks? Another perfect capitalist tool?)

So what is Science and Nature going to do? Send special emissaries to check the labs where the research was done, who did it and the original notebook entries? Many of the big name academics with 20-30 researchers in their labs probably do not know this information as well. These are going to be interesting times for grating organizations, journals and scientific researchers! We need to rethink our own incentives and culture of how we communicate and recognize our research.

Permalink to Comment

29. Tyrosine on December 9, 2013 2:05 AM writes...

Google for "term papers for sale" and see how many US and UK sites come up. Let's not be too quick to point the finger.

Permalink to Comment


Remember Me?


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

Gitcher SF5 Groups Right Here
Changing A Broken Science System
One and Done
The Latest Protein-Protein Compounds
Professor Fukuyama's Solvent Peaks
Novartis Gets Out of RNAi
Total Synthesis in Flow
Sweet Reason Lands On Its Face