Predatory Publishing Stings

Research Article | Computer Systems

A historically minimal manuscript presented in a full journal frame.

Published March 4, 2026 | DOI: 10.0000/fr.2026.0001

Investigation | Research Integrity

A conference acceptance test built by repeatedly tapping phone autocomplete.

Published October 20, 2016 | DOI: Source report: bartneck.de (2016)

Sting Report | Research Integrity

A parody biomedical manuscript with film lore and broken citations still reached acceptance.

Published November 2017 | DOI: Source report: Discover Magazine (2017)

Case Study | Publishing Systems

Randomly generated text plus cartoon bylines exposed fake peer-review theater.

Published December 2014 | DOI: Source report: Vox (2014)

Large-Scale Sting | Research Integrity

A flawed fake paper was submitted widely to test open-access review quality.

Published October 4, 2013 | DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Field Experiment | Editorial Governance

A fabricated and unqualified scholar profile received editorial invitations.

Published March 22, 2017 | DOI: 10.1038/543481a

Meta Analysis | Publishing Systems

From parody generator to real-world indexing failures and mass retractions.

Published April 14, 2015 | DOI: Source report: MIT News (2015)

Sting Report | Research Integrity

A fabricated biomedical manuscript reportedly accepted by multiple low-quality journals.

Published 2015 | DOI: Reported in Fast Company (2015)

Retraction Case | Research Integrity

A deliberately absurd pandemic-era submission accepted then quickly retracted.

Published 2020 | DOI: Retraction Watch case analysis (2020)

Conference Study | Research Integrity

A GPT-4 era stress test of suspected predatory journals using generated manuscripts.

Published 2024 | DOI: Conference proceedings (2024)

Media-Sting Analysis | Research Integrity

A demonstration of how weak study design and hype channels can manufacture credibility.

Published 2015 / 2023 follow-up analysis | DOI: Retraction Watch retrospective