Fake journal publications erode trust in mathematics

Science rests on trust. Readers assume that published studies have been carefully reviewed, checked, and that they contribute new knowledge. Cracks have emerged as pressure to publish and metrics distort science, undermining trust once central to research across fields including mathematics.

An international team of authors led by Ilka Agricola, a professor of mathematics at the University of Marburg, Germany, has uncovered systematic fraud within mathematical publishing.

The investigation, carried out on behalf of the German Mathematical Society (DMV) and the International Mathematical Union (IMU), revealed troubling patterns stretching back many years.

The study’s release on the arXiv preprint server and in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society has already stirred strong reactions from mathematicians around the world.

Quality lost to quantity

The findings show how the definition of research quality has shifted. Instead of focusing on content, originality, and insight, institutions and individuals are increasingly evaluated by commercial metrics. These include the number of publications, total citations, and the so-called impact factor of journals.

Such measures, calculated by private companies with little transparency, have gained outsized influence. Providers promote their databases globally, and universities use them to enhance prestige and compete internationally.

This environment rewards quantity over quality, pushing academics to publish more, even when contributions are marginal or flawed.

Fraudulent companies have seized this opportunity. They sell services that manipulate rankings, offering ghostwritten articles, fake peer reviews, and even bundles of citations. For individuals, this can mean better career prospects.

For universities, it can result in higher rankings, increased funding, and greater appeal to international students. The collateral damage is a growing pool of unread publications that add nothing to scientific understanding.

Fake mathematics success

The report documents striking examples that reveal how metrics can produce absurd outcomes. In 2019, Clarivate Inc., the market leader for citation data, ranked a Taiwanese university as having the most world-class mathematicians. The catch was startling: mathematics was not even offered at the institution.

Cases like this highlight the gap between numbers and reality. At the same time, megajournals that accept papers from anyone willing to pay have ballooned in output.

They now publish more mathematical papers each year than all respected journals combined, which do not charge authors for publication.

Behind these numbers lies a shadow economy. Fraudsters, often anonymous, advertise services ranging from selling citations to guaranteeing publication. What once was a system designed to communicate knowledge has, in many corners, been twisted into a market for reputation.

Mathematic trust under threat

“‘Fake science‘ is not only annoying, it is a danger to science and society,” said IMU Secretary General Professor Christoph Sorger.

“Because you don’t know what is valid and what is not. Targeted disinformation undermines trust in science and also makes it difficult for us mathematicians to decide which results can be used as a basis for further research.”

This erosion of trust strikes at the heart of mathematics. Proofs rely on certainty, yet when fraudulent or hollow work appears in respected outlets, that certainty weakens.

Scholars now question not only the quality of specific papers but also the systems that allowed them to appear in the first place.

If unchecked, such doubts could slow the pace of discovery. Instead of building confidently on published findings, researchers risk wasting time navigating a maze of questionable results.

Fixing trust in mathematics publishing

The commission’s work does not end with exposing the problem. It also outlines possible solutions for a healthier publication system. These recommendations emphasize the need to strengthen peer review, encourage collaboration among journals, and recenter the evaluation of research on quality rather than raw numbers.

They also call for more transparency in how metrics are calculated. Without such clarity, researchers remain trapped in a cycle where opaque numbers dictate career paths and institutional reputations.

By breaking this dependence, mathematics could return to valuing ideas and insights over inflated statistics.

“The recommendations developed by the commission are a call to all of us to work toward a system change,” said DMV President Professor Jürg Kramer.

Future of trustworthy science

The study signals a pivotal moment for mathematics and possibly for science more broadly. If adopted, the recommendations could help restore credibility and ensure that publications reflect genuine contributions.

Metrics are deeply tied to funding and prestige, so the shift won’t be simple, but it could reshape the landscape for future generations.

The broader scientific community is watching closely. If mathematicians succeed in reforming their publication practices, they may provide a model for other fields facing similar challenges.

Restoring trust, protecting rigor, and reaffirming the value of genuine discovery remain goals that extend well beyond mathematics.

The study is published in arXiv.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–