The Unfolding Scandal in Academic Publishing

A recent investigation has exposed a massive breach in research integrity, revealing over 1,720 conference papers published in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) proceedings that were likely sourced from commercial paper mills. These entities produce and sell fabricated or ghostwritten manuscripts, often advertised openly on social media platforms like Telegram, WhatsApp, and Facebook groups. The study, led by metascientist Anna Abalkina from Freie Universität Berlin, matched more than 4,000 public authorship-for-sale offers posted between February 2021 and December 2025 to actual publications, uncovering patterns of misconduct including identical titles, unusual co-author collaborations, and citation anomalies.

This scandal highlights vulnerabilities in the rapid publication cycle of conferences, where peer review can be lax compared to journals. For Indian higher education, the findings are particularly alarming, as 93 percent of the flagged papers list at least one author from India, raising urgent questions about systemic pressures driving researchers toward shortcuts.

Understanding Paper Mills: A Shadow Industry

Paper mills are organized operations that churn out low-quality or fake research for profit, offering services like ghostwriting, authorship slots, data fabrication, and guaranteed publication. Unlike traditional predatory journals, these mills target legitimate venues, exploiting conference proceedings where acceptance rates can exceed 70 percent in some cases. Prices for first authorship range from as low as $56 to over $5,000, with Indian-focused mills offering IEEE slots for under $150.

The process typically works like this: A mill posts ads on obscure social channels promising 'guaranteed IEEE publication' with exact titles, author limits (often six), and topics like AI, wireless networks, or cybersecurity. Buyers, seeking to pad CVs, pay up. The mill submits the paper, sometimes with minor tweaks to evade detection. Once published in IEEE Xplore, the paper boosts metrics for promotions or rankings.

The Groundbreaking Study: Methods and Revelations

Abalkina's team scraped over 4,000 offers from 200+ channels, focusing on those specifying IEEE conferences. Using semi-automated title matching and human verification, they confirmed 1,720 papers in 286 proceedings—up to 23.51 percent of papers in some events. Key red flags included:

• 72 percent exact title matches between ads and publications.
• Predominance of six-author papers, matching ad limits.
• High affiliation diversity: authors from unrelated institutions across cities or countries.
• Citation stacking and content duplication.

Co-authors numbered over 6,500 from 3,500 institutions in 55 countries, but India dominated at 93 percent involvement. Of 88 conferences with five or more flagged papers, 77 were hosted in India, often co-sponsored by IEEE's local sections in Uttar Pradesh, Chennai, and Bengaluru.

Why India? Pressures in the Higher Education Ecosystem

India's academic landscape incentivizes quantity over quality. The University Grants Commission (UGC) mandates publications for PhD awards, faculty promotions via Academic Performance Indicators (API), and institutional funding. National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) weights research output heavily—up to 30 percent for universities—rewarding sheer volume.

With over 1,000 universities and intense competition, junior faculty and PhD students face 'publish or perish' realities. Conferences like IEEE events offer quick turnaround (weeks vs. months for journals) and Scopus indexing, ideal for metrics. Experts like physicist Sunil Mukhi note this inflates counts dishonestly, while Banaras Hindu University's Subhash Lakhotia calls NIRF 'misleading' amid easy authorship purchases.

Cultural factors compound issues: hierarchical institutions prioritize senior approvals, and regional conferences multiply opportunities. India accounts for 28 percent of global paper mill retractions, third after China and the US.

Impacts on Indian Universities and Global Trust

The scandal erodes credibility. NIRF toppers like IITs and NITs risk tainted rankings if flagged papers surface. Retractions damage careers; India saw 900+ in 2025 alone from misconduct. Globally, IEEE Xplore's reputation suffers, as proceedings are cited in theses and grants.

Stakeholders lose: Funders waste resources on junk science; policymakers base decisions on flawed data. Students inherit a distrustful environment, questioning peers' work. Long-term, it hampers innovation in fields like AI and engineering, where India excels on paper but lags in breakthroughs.

IEEE's Role and the Conference Model's Flaws

IEEE, the world's largest technical society, publishes thousands of conference papers yearly via Xplore. While rigorous for journals, conferences rely on organizers' peer review, often volunteer-driven and rushed. Local IEEE sections co-sponsoring Indian events may overlook red flags amid volume.

No official IEEE response to Abalkina's study yet, though they claim to retract nonconforming papers when alerted. Critics urge centralized screening, AI plagiarism checks, and title pre-registration.

Broader Global Context and Related Scandals

Paper mills aren't India-specific; BuyTheBy dataset catalogs 18,710 ads from seven mills across countries, targeting Springer, IEEE, and more.Learn more about the BuyTheBy dataset Russia, Iraq, Uzbekistan mills charge premiums. India leads in volume due to scale—producing 7 percent of global papers.

Retraction Watch notes rising conference fraud; EDP Sciences retracted entire proceedings in 2026. India faces parallel issues in journals, patents, theses.

Stakeholder Perspectives: Voices from Academia

Abalkina warns: 'Authorities must know what's going on—offers are public.' Indian scientists like Mukhi and Lakhotia demand reforms: decouple promotions from counts, emphasize quality via DORA principles.

• June 2025 open letter from top scientists to government: Unimplemented.
• Calls for UGC audits, plagiarism thresholds >20 percent auto-reject.

Optimists point to ICMR/NIRF penalties, but enforcement lags.

Solutions and Reforms on the Horizon

Fixes include:

• Metric Shift: Adopt narrative CVs, peer endorsements over counts (DORA).
• Tech Tools: AI detectors like OpenAI's, blockchain for provenance.
• Conference Overhaul: IEEE mandatory declarations, centralized review.
• India-Specific: UGC cap conference papers at 20 percent API; NIRF quality weights (citations, impact).
• Education: Workshops on ethics for PhDs.

International collaboration: COPE guidelines, shared blacklists. Progress: Some journals reject IEEE conference preprints.

Future Outlook: Rebuilding Trust in Indian Research

Without action, scandals erode India's R&D ambitions (target 2 percent GDP by 2025). Positively, awareness rises—Retraction Watch, India Research Watch spotlight issues. Reforms could position India as integrity leader, fostering genuine innovation.

For academics, prioritize quality: collaborate meaningfully, mentor ethically. Institutions: Invest in training. The scandal is a wake-up call—turn pressure into excellence.

Photo by Bergstrand Consultancy on Unsplash