Paper mill studies get cited by clinical guidelines, policy docs and more, analysis finds

A study analyzing academic papers linked to the Pharmakon Neuroscience Network (PNN) has found that these studies are frequently cited in patents, policy documents, and clinical guidelines. The PNN, which is not a legitimate network of scientists, emerged in 2019 and often included coauthors from diverse backgrounds. Researchers Federica Silvi and Leslie McIntosh of scholarly services firm Digital Science in London examined 1,975 articles by authors associated with the PNN and discovered that 480 of these papers were cited in patents, 57 in policy documents, and 12 in clinical guidelines.

Malcolm Macleod, a neurologist and research integrity expert, expressed concern over paper mill studies being cited, noting that it could potentially mislead clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear if the citations in clinical guidelines directly influence recommendations based on the questionable papers. McIntosh stated that clinical guidelines contain numerous citations overall, making it challenging to determine if the problematic studies specifically sway guidelines.

Many studies in this field produce results in line with existing literature, implying that the citation of paper mill studies might not significantly impact guidelines. Nevertheless, placing an expression of concern to any guideline citing a questionable study could be a step towards rectifying the issue. Since 2022, the PNN has ceased to exist, and its affiliated researchers have continued publishing studies, attracting significant funding.

However, some authors may not be fully aware of their association with the PNN, and researchers who knowingly use paper mills might misuse grant funds if they are aware of their origin.