🚨 Widespread fraud in mathematical publications

In the academic landscape, the obsession with numbers and rankings can sometimes mask the true value of research. Warning signs indicate that some evaluation systems, instead of promoting excellence, encourage questionable practices.

Under the direction of Ilka Agricola, a professor at the University of Marburg in Germany, a group of international researchers conducted an in-depth study on mathematical publications. Commissioned by the German Mathematical Society (DMV) and the International Mathematical Union (IMU), they discovered widespread and persistent fraud, orchestrated to artificially increase performance scores. Their results, first disseminated on the arXiv preprint platform and then detailed in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, immediately attracted attention and raised concerns within the global mathematical community.


The metrics used to evaluate research quality, such as the number of publications, citations, or journal impact factors, are often generated by private companies using non-transparent methods. These indicators, marketed globally, benefit from limited oversight by the scientific community. Some fraudulent organizations specialize in helping researchers and institutions manipulate these figures, attracted by benefits such as increased funding, higher tuition fees, and enhanced international appeal.

The study cites telling examples, such as one reported by Clarivate Inc. in 2019, where a Taiwanese university without a mathematics program was ranked as having the largest number of world-class mathematics researchers. Furthermore, mega-journals, which accept virtually all articles for a fee, now produce more articles per year than all reputable mathematics journals without paywalls. In the shadows, anonymous brokers sell fabricated metrics, offering ready-to-publish articles or citation boosts for payment.

The Secretary General of the IMU, Christoph Sorger, warns against the risks of 'fake science', which not only disrupts the scientific community but also erodes public trust. He explains that this situation makes it difficult to distinguish between valid and invalid information, thereby hindering the progress of knowledge. For his part, the President of the DMV, Jürg Kramer, calls for an overhaul of practices to restore integrity in mathematical publications.

The commission's proposals include measures to improve the transparency of evaluation metrics and strengthen peer review processes. The main objective is to refocus attention on real scientific contribution rather than on quantitative indicators that are often subject to manipulation. This initiative aims to restore trust and ensure that mathematical research continues to serve as a solid foundation for future advances.

The Impact Factor

The impact factor is a numerical indicator that measures the average frequency with which a journal's articles are cited over a given period. It is often used as a proxy for the quality or influence of a publication. Calculated by companies like Clarivate, it is based on the number of citations received by articles published in the journal over the previous two years, divided by the number of articles published during that same period.

However, the impact factor has several limitations. It can be influenced by research fields where citations are more frequent, regardless of quality. Furthermore, it does not account for the diversity of article types or their long-term impact. The pressure to publish in high-impact factor journals may encourage researchers to favor trendy topics over innovative but less-cited work.

To counter these problems, alternatives such as usage-based metrics or qualitative assessments are being proposed. The goal is to develop evaluation systems that are fairer and more representative of real scientific value, thereby reducing incentives for manipulation. For example, the open science movement encourages the publication of data and methods, allowing for independent verification.