Tracing high-profile attention to questionable research as a case for funder due diligence
2026-08-31 • Digital Libraries
Digital LibrariesSocial and Information Networks
AI summaryⓘ
The authors studied a group of questionable research papers that were tied to a network selling authorship spots. They found that some of these papers were still being used in important places like policy documents, clinical guidelines, and patents. Even after this network was publicly exposed in 2022, many authors kept getting research funding and publishing new papers. The authors suggest that funding agencies should check not just publication numbers but also the relationships between authors to avoid supporting unreliable research.
paper millsauthorship-for-salepolicy documentsclinical guidelinesresearch fundingpublication ethicscitation analysispatentsdue diligenceacademic publishing
Authors
Federica Silvi, Leslie D. McIntosh
Abstract
When questionable research has entered the scientific record, it stands the same chance as other literature of shaping national and international policy, clinical guidance, and research and development activities. This study uses a known authorship-for-sale network identified in August 2022 to examine whether questionable research influences policy, patents, and clinical guidelines, and whether its authors continue to secure funding and publish after exposure. Across nearly 2,000 publications in our dataset, 57 were cited in policy documents, 12 in clinical guidelines, and 480 in patents. Nearly a quarter of these publications are linked to one or more grants: funding that could otherwise have supported rigorous, ethical science. Among the 278 authors we traced, publishing and funding continued well after the PNN's public exposure in 2022: over 90% continued publishing, and 23% were linked to a grant. As our findings show, the participants of paper mills and authorship-for-sale networks can still inform policy and clinical practice and support their authors' career progression even after the questionable practices behind them are exposed. We present a case for funders to consider authorship and network structure as part of a holistic due diligence process, alongside metrics such as citation counts and attention data.