IEEE continues to strengthen its research integrity process.

Ensuring the integrity of the research IEEE publishes is crucial to maintaining the organization’s credibility as a scholarly publisher.

IEEE produces more than 30 percent of the world’s scholarly literature in electrical engineering, electronics, and computer science. In fact, the 50 top-patenting companies cite IEEE nearly three times more than any other technical-literature publisher.

With the volume of academic paper submissions increasing over the years, IEEE is continuously evolving its publishing processes based on industry best practices to help detect papers with issues of concern. They include plagiarism, inappropriate citations, author coercion by editors or reviewers, and the use of artificial intelligence to generate content without proper disclosure.

“Within the overall publishing industry, there are now many more types of misconduct and many more cases of violations, so it has become essential for all technical publishers to deal seriously with them,” says IEEE Fellow Sergio Benedetto, vice president of IEEE Publication Services and Products.

“Authors are also more careful to choose publishers that are serious about addressing misconduct. It has become important not only for the integrity of research but also for the publishing business,” adds Benedetto, a member of the IEEE Board of Directors.

“It’s important to understand that the IEEE is not blind to this problem but rather is investing heavily in trying to solve it,” says Steven Heffner, managing director of IEEE Publications. “We’re investing in technology around detection and investigation. We’re also investing with partners to develop their technologies so that we can help the whole industry scale up a detection system. And we’re also investing in staff resources.”

New ways to rig the system

Some of the root causes driving the misconduct have to do with incentives offered to authors to encourage them to publish more, Heffner says.

“Promotions and tenure are tied to publishing research, and the old ‘publish or perish’ imperative is still in operation,” he says. “There are now more ways for scholars to be evaluated through technology tracking the number of times their work has been cited, and through the use of bibliometrics,” a statistical method that counts the number of publications and citations by an author or researcher. Those statistics are used to validate the value their work brings to their organization.

“Even more sophisticated ways are being used to manipulate the system of bibliometrics,” Heffner says, “such as citation pseudo cartels that operate in a quid-pro-quo way of ‘I’ll cite you if you cite me.’

“Unfortunately, these are all creating more opportunities for people to abuse the system.”

Other activities on the rise include paper mills run by for-profit companies, which create fake journal articles that appear to be genuine research and then sell authorship to would-be scholars.

“Within the overall publishing industry, there are now many more types of misconduct and many more cases of violations, so it has become essential for all technical publishers to deal seriously with them.” —Sergio Benedetto

“I think the paper mill is the most dangerous at-scale problem we’ve got,” Heffner says. “But the old crimes such as plagiarism still persist, and in some ways are getting harder to spot.”

Benedetto says some fraudulent authors are making up the names and websites of reviewers, so their articles get accepted without undergoing peer review. It’s a serious issue, he says.

“I don’t think IEEE is unique in its experience in this phenomenon of misconduct,” he says. “Several commercial publishers and many in fields outside of technology are seeing the same problems.”

Addressing author misconduct

The IEEE PSPB Publishing Content Committee, which handles editorial misconduct cases, treats violations of its publication process as major infractions.

“IEEE’s volunteers are particularly strong on developing policies,” Heffner says. “We need that governance, but we also need their expertise as people who are participants in the endeavor of science.”

Benedetto says IEEE is serious about finding questionable papers and approaches, and it has launched several initiatives.

IEEE checks all content submitted to journals for plagiarism. A systematic, real-time analysis of data during the publication process helps identify potential wrongdoing. Reviewers of papers are required to include recommended references on their review form to monitor for high bibliometrics.

The organization’s peer review platform works to identify possible misuse by reviewers and editors. It monitors for biased reviews, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and tracking reviewer activity to identify patterns that might indicate inappropriate behavior.

The names of authors and editors are compared against a list of prohibited participants, people who have violated IEEE publishing principles and can no longer publish in the organization’s journals.

Some unscrupulous authors are using artificial intelligence to game the system, Heffner says.

“With the advent of generative AI, completely fraudulent papers can be made more quickly and look more convincingly authentic,” he says.

That leads to concerns about the data’s validity.

A new policy addresses the use of AI by authors and peer reviewers. Authors who use AI for creating text or other work in their articles must clearly identify the portions and provide appropriate references to the AI tool. Reviewers are not permitted to load manuscripts into an AI-based large language model to generate their reviews, nor may they use AI to write them.

Anyone who suspects misconduct of any type—including inappropriate citations, use of AI, and plagiarism—can file a complaint using the IEEE Ethics Reporting Line. It is available seven days a week, 24 hours a day. An independent third party manages the process, and the information provided is sent to IEEE on a confidential basis and, if requested, anonymously.

Types of corrective actions

Should an author or reviewer be suspected of misconduct, a case is opened and a detailed analysis is performed. An independent committee reviews the information and, if warranted, begins an investigation. The alleged offender is allowed to respond to the allegations. If the offender is found guilty, several sanctions can be applied.

Depending on the severity of the violation, an escalating system of sanctions is used. Individuals who plagiarize content at a severe enough level are restricted from editorial duties and publishing, and their names get added to the prohibited participants list (PPL) database. Those on the list may not participate in any IEEE publication–related activities, including conferences. They also are removed from any editorial positions they hold.

IEEE has strengthened its article retraction and removal policies. When an article is flagged, the author receives an expression of concern. Unreliable data could result from an honest error or from research misconduct.

IEEE considers retraction a method of correcting the literature. When there are issues with the content, it takes the appropriate level of care and time in the review and, if necessary, retracts nonconforming publications. The retraction notices alert readers to those publications. Retractions also are used to alert readers to cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and failure to disclose competing interests likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations. In the most severe cases, articles are removed.

Retracted articles are not removed from printed copies of the publication or electronic archives, but their retracted status and the reason for retraction are explained.

IEEE’s corrective actions for publishing misconduct used to be focused on restricting authorship, but they now include restrictions on editorial roles such as peer reviewer, editor, conference organizer, and conference publication officer. Their names also are added to the PPL, and they can be prohibited from publishing with IEEE.

Industry-wide efforts to detect misconduct

IEEE and other scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishers have joined forces to launch pilot programs aimed at detecting simultaneous submissions of suspicious content across publishers, Heffner says.

They are working on developing an STM Integrity Hub, a powerful submission screening tool that can flag tactics related to misconduct, including paper mills.

The publishers also are developing custom AI and machine learning–based tools to screen submissions and those articles that have undergone peer review in real time. Some of the tools have already been rolled out.

Benedetto says he is working on a process for sharing IEEE’s list of prohibited participants with other publishers.

“Those found guilty of misconduct simply go to other publishers,” he says. “Each publisher has its own list, but those aren’t shared with others, so it has become very simple for a banned author to change publishers to get around the ban. A shared list of misconduct cases would prevent those who are found guilty from publishing in all technical journals during the period of their sentence.”

“We are all working together to share information and to share best practices,” Heffner says, “so that we can fight this as a community of publishers that take their stewardship of the scholarly record seriously.”

“Some colleagues or authors think that misconduct may be a shortcut to build a better career or reach publication targets more easily,” Benedetto says. “This is not true. Misconduct is not a personal issue. It’s an issue that can and does build mistrust toward institutions, publishers, and journals.

“IEEE will continue to strengthen its efforts to combat publication misconduct cases because we believe that research integrity is the basis of our business. If readers lose trust in our journals and authors, then they lose trust in the IEEE itself.”