Csaba Szabo, professor of pharmacology at University of Fribourg in Switzerland, was contacted by a Chinese papermill offering him money. All Csaba had to do to earn between $1500 and $5000 a pop was either to ghost-write papers for the papermill or to make sure their products get published in a journal where he is editor. He even received a ready manuscript, and was told he will be paid as soon as the paper is accepted.

We publish here everything.

The question is: how many professors would have reacted differently from Dr Szabo? How many members of editorial boards at Elsevier, MDPI or Frontiers are happily lining their pockets with papermill money as you read these lines?

---

Operation “Publishable Garbage” — A Sting Inside a Papermill

By Csaba Szabo

“Paper Mills” Are Becoming Curiously Fashionable 

The blog For Better Science was one of the first to devote an extensive, highly informative investigative report to the problem of papermills. Mainstream journals, including as Nature and Science have covered it, too, in recent years (e.g., Nature 2022, Nature 2023, Science 2023, Nature 2025), as well as academic researchers (e.g. Parker et al 2024, Porter et al 2024, Heathers 2024). Papermills constitute a billion-dollar industry that poison the scientific literature.

Despite growing concern, surprisingly little is known about how these operations actually function. As far as I am aware, no investigative journalist or sleuth has ever managed to infiltrate one. Smut Clyde imagines that a paper mill is perhaps like a “medieval scriptorium, basing my mental picture on “The Name of the Rose”, with a room full of monks at their separate desks, working on separate tasks”.  The “monks” are probably former scientists who have “gone rogue” and now engage in this activity as a primary source of income. But it is also possible that some bona fide academic scientists may have side-gigs as paper-mill paper “creators”. 

Many papermills thought to operate from countries such as China, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Latvia, or Poland. These organizations appear to have dedicated “marketing arms” tasked with identifying corrupt insiders within academia — individuals willing to accept bribes to push their fake manuscript products into the literature –– preferably into bona fide, indexed journals.

Retraction data supports some unsettling patterns. Quantitative analyses suggest that so-called “Special Issues” organized and reviewed by so-called “guest editors” are significantly more likely than regular editors to serve as entry points for paper mill products (Hanson et al 2023, Bik 2023, Mills et al 2024, Nature 2023). These operations often rely on fake peer-review networks — often impersonating real scientists by using fraudulent email addresses that resemble legitimate ones — to create the illusion of scientific vetting. While much of this remains in the shadows, paper mills occasionally come to light when vigilant sleuths uncover entire families of fake publications — dozens or even hundreds — triggering mass retractions. Some paper mills, however, are bold enough to operate in the open. One such entity, calling itself “International Publisher,” lists official partners and even held a 2016 seminar titled “Rapid Publication in Scopus and Thomson Reuters Journals” at the Biology Faculty of Moscow State University (Abalkina 2021, The Insider 2019).

Setting Up a Sting Operation

In 2023, I experienced my first personal encounter with a papermill representative. A person identifying herself as “Ms. Kristen” contacted me through my university email. Claiming to represent the “Alliance Academy of Science,” they stated that they had “cultivated strong collaborations with numerous researchers worldwide” and wanted to “extend an invitation for potential collaboration”:

I briefly replied, received a price list in return, and mentioned this interaction in a few short passages in my book Unreliable.

A few weeks ago, it happened again. This time, the email came from a “Julia,” in a similar tone and with familiar phrasing:

I decided to take the opportunity to investigate it further and reached out to Leonid Schneider at For Better Science. Together, we devised a small “sting operation” to gain first-hand insight into how these paper mills interact with the academic environment they seek to infiltrate to release their “products”. Our plan was simple. I would pretend to be interested in their offer, share just enough information to gain their trust, and attempt to gather as much detail as possible about their business model and payment practices. Ideally, I would also obtain a sample of a paper they were trying to place. Then, following Leonid’s clever suggestion, I would act greedy but also express doubt about whether they would actually pay me — hoping to elicit information about the magnitude of their operation and perhaps even about the names of some of the corrupt academic insiders who work with them.

Once I replied to their initial email, they have quickly moved the conversation to WhatsApp. All further communication occurred via text messages, which I have archived as screenshots (one example is shown on the right). A full, word-for-word transcript of the exchange — including several telling images they shared — is provided below. The entire interaction unfolded over approximately 72 hours.

---

“Julia”:
Hi, dear Dr. 

Good time
I’m Julia

Nice to meet you

“Julia” :
dear Dr. I contacted with you by email

Csaba Szabo:
Yes, I am here.

Julia” :
Hi, dear Dr, 

Good time dear.

could you share with me your google scholar?

I would like to learn more about the articles you have previously published.🤗

Csaba Szabo:
Professor, Chair of Pharmacology, University of Fribourg
https://scholar.google.ch/citations?user=BwakT0AAAAJ&hl=de
I published 600 papers and have a H-index of 154.

“Julia” :
Dr. we are a client service company, most of our clients are in our country, their English level is weak, but you are experienced, we would like to invite you to help our clients complete the paper writing and submission, And we can offer compensation.

Csaba Szabo:
Please send me more details.

“Julia” :
dear. please check our cooperation modes.
One is research project cooperation. The other is fast publishing cooperation.
Type 1: Researchers give topics or titles under clients need, then conducting the experiments.
Type 2: Show clients researchers’ ready titles which the experiments are ongoing or finished and clients choose them.
Fast publishing cooperation also has two types:
Type 1: Evaluating articles, evaluating the quality of articles, suggesting journals, and providing several comments.
Type 2: The language editing, scientific and structural improvements, submission and follow-up till acceptance.
The two modes of cooperation can be rewarded in return, The price is also related to IF.

Csaba Szabo:
Yes ok I already saw this in your email, but I would need more concrete info to see if this is financially worth my time.

“Julia”:
dear Dr. this is the Price of the first cooperation mode
writing+publishing

---

At this point, “Julia” sent me the following screenshot:

This is actually the first page of a multi-page document that was already sent to me in also in 2023 by “Ms. Kristen”. Each page of this document is shown below:

---

Csaba Szabo:
OK, so the fastest way to do this would be to work on (2) where the project is already finished. In this case you will send me a draft of the manuscript, correct? And my task is to edit it for style and language and make sure it to get published in a journal. Correct?

“Julia”:
dear, you mean the fast publishing cooperation mode, right?

Csaba Szabo:
And what is the organization that will pay me?

“Julia” :
dear. when the paper accepted, we will pay after acceptence

“Julia”:
dear Dr. do you serve as editor in some SCI journals?

Csaba Szabo:
Yes. Geroscience, Molecular Medicine, Nitric Oxide, Mitochondrion.

But who is “we”

And I am sorry, but I don’t understand the price structure. For example if 4-5 meta/ review would give me 4000, but then will I be an author on the paper too or only facilitator of publishing it?

And I don’t understand the 50 and 10% cooperation benefit part.

“Julia”:
our company

plz wait

If our client wants a research article with IF 4-5 and purchases all author positions, and their institution does not allow adding foreign authors, our price is 5000 USD. If the client requires a review article or a meta-analysis, our price will be 5000±1000.
will be 5000 * 80% = 4000 USD.

and we will pay after acceptence

Csaba Szabo:
Do you already have material to be published that I can start on?

“Julia”:
If we have similar manuscripts submit to the journals you are editing, is the probability of acceptance high?

Csaba Szabo):
What do you mean similar?

“Julia” :
Manuscripts similar to the journal’s research scope.

Csaba Szabo:
Yes of course. I can guarantee if the quality is sufficient. But it is easier if I am not an author myself.

“Julia” :
dear. is the probability of acceptance high?

Csaba Szabo:
100%.

“Julia”:
dear Dr. Can you help us get articles accepted in all four of these journals?

Csaba Szabo:
Yes, I have a lot of influence on these boards.

“Julia” (10:31):
👍 that’s great

dear Dr. this is our fast publishing price.

Csaba Szabo:
But these are now lower prices than what was previously quoted. What is the difference?

“Julia”:
dear. this is submission Price, we will provide the client’s manuscript, We hope you can help us with polishing and evaluating the manuscript.

Csaba Szabo:
And in the previous scheme that was more money for me? How is that different? Sorry, I have never done this before.

“Julia”:
dear Dr. Regarding the first type of collaboration, we need you to write the manuscript and submit it. Payment will be made after the article is accepted.

The second type of collaboration is that our client’s manuscript will be sent to you for evaluation. You would assess whether you can help us submit it to a journal where you serve as an editor. If the article is successfully accepted, we will pay you a submission fee.

Csaba Szabo:
Ah ok. In the first form you will supply the data, figures, methods etc?
In the second you supply the whole paper?

And I am not an author in either case. Ok.
Lets start with one of each. Do you have materials ready to go?

“Julia”:
dear Dr. plz wait
if we have any projects related to your research area, we will tell you.

Csaba Szabo:
Okay I wait.
Also it would be nice to have a contract so that I am guaranteed to get my payment.
Do you pay in bitcoin?

“Julia”):
yes, dear
Dr. we pay USD
And we can pay by Alipay, wechat, bank transfer, tether, paypal or perfect Money

“Julia”:
dear Dr. another thing, for the first cooperation mode, could you write according to our client’s need?

Csaba Szabo:
Sure.

“Julia”:
that’s great, thanks so much

Csaba Szabo:
Ok so I wait for a contract for you and some papers and materials I can help with. How soon can you send them?

“Julia”:
dear Dr. I have now asked our colleagues if they have found any projects related to your research field. I will inform you as soon as I receive a response.

Csaba Szabo:
Excellent. Looking forward to a productive relationship. Sometimes I also edit Special Issues in case you have a series of studies in a certain well defined field.

“Julia”:
dear Dr. If you are serving as a guest editor for any special issues, you can also share them with me.

Csaba Szabo:
The journals keep asking me for special issues. If you have a list of scientists or topics that your network is active in, I could propose a special issue. Then perhaps we could publish a series of papers together.

Csaba Szabo:
But I would also need some assurance that your organization is legit and I get my payments as promised. A written contract would be best. But you could perhaps suggest a few scientists or editors that worked with you before and I could get some verification from them that way.

“Julia”:
Dear Dr. I have communicated your request to our project team. If we successfully identify projects related to your research field, our colleague Ariana will send you the project details along with a quotation. Please feel free to reach out at any time if you have any questions.

“Ariana”:
Hello dear Dr, I’m Ariana. From now on, I will be communicating with you regarding the projects.

“Ariana”:
Looking forward to a successful collaboration with you.

Csaba Szabo:
Okay! How shall we proceed?

“Ariana”:
Morning Dr

“Ariana”:
Did Julia explain our collaboration model and pricing to you?

“Ariana”:
I found that you are an editor at GeroScience. Could you help us with submission and acceptance? We have a manuscript we’d like to submit and would like to know if you can assist.

---

At this point, a complete manuscript, in Word file, was sent via WhatsApp, dealing with the effect of “LncRNA” on “DNAJC3-AS1/hsa-miR-576-5p/SSBP2” in a form of cancer. The manuscript, Sun et al., listed 8 authors, all from China, and contained 5 multi-panel figures.

Zhenni Sun, Mi Zhou, Yasai Yao, Xuehong Chen, Tao Qin, Yafei Han, Lu Yue, Ruyong Yao Regulation of LncRNA DNAJC3-AS1/hsa-miR-576-5p/SSBP2 Axis in Gastric Cancer Migration

It is identical to this preprint posted on 2 March 2025:

Zhenni Sun , Mi Zhou , Yasai Yao , Xuehong Chen , Tao Qin , Yafei Han , Lu Yue , Ruyong Yao Regulation of LncRNA DNAJC3-AS1/hsa-miR-576-5p/SSBP2 Axis in Gastric Cancer Migration Research Square (2025) doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6124816/v1 

The corresponding authors Ruyong Yao from Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University and Lu Yue from Qingdao Municipal Hospital already have a PubPeer record:

Dongfang Tang , Lu Yue , Ruyong Yao , Lin Zhou , Yuqin Yang , Liming Lu , Wen Gao P53 prevent tumor invasion and metastasis by down-regulating IDO in lung cancer Oncotarget (2017) doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.17408 

Another joint study, with Yao’s name differently transcribed:

Lu Yue , Zhen‑Ni Sun , Ya‑Sai Yao , Zan Shen , Hai‑Bo Wang , Xiang‑Ping Liu , Fang Zhou , Jin‑Yu Xiang , Ru‑Yong Yao , Hai‑Tao Niu CRM1, a novel independent prognostic factor overexpressed in invasive breast carcinoma of poor prognosis Oncology letters (2018) doi: 10.3892/ol.2018.8316 

This is on PubPeer since 2017, by Yao, Yue and the another coauthor of the Anzen papermill manuscript, Yasai Yao:

Xiaoxiao Li , Ruyong Yao , Lu Yue , Wensheng Qiu , Weiwei Qi , Shihai Liu , Yasai Yao, Jun Liang FOXM1 mediates resistance to docetaxel in gastric cancer via up-regulating Stathmin Journal of cellular and molecular medicine (2014) doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12216 

And one more for Ruyong Yao:

They initiate contact through random emails sent to academic scientists — likely by harvesting email addresses from PubMed. The fact that they reached out to me, and then willingly entered into a conversation, suggests that they perform no background checks whatsoever. A simple Google search would have led them straight to Unreliable, and it would have been immediately obvious where I stand on such matters. But as it turns out, greed and sloppiness can make excellent bedfellows. 

Our WhatsApp exchange revealed a predatory scheme involving scientific ghostwriting, authorship-for-sale, and manipulation of the peer-review process via bribery. The sale of authorship — especially fraudulent authorship — is textbook scientific misconduct, particularly since its goal is to pad CVs, strengthen grant applications, or secure academic promotions.

Second, the messages — although phrased in flowery terms and use words like “collaboration” —  clearly reveal attempted bribery and editorial manipulation. “Julia” implies that I could act as an editor and be paid for getting papers accepted in journals I am affiliated with. This is a direct violation of conflict-of-interest policies and, in the context of a public university, could amount to criminal abuse of office. Privately profiting from editorial influence breaches institutional codes of conduct, national research integrity guidelines, and international anti-corruption rules.

Then there’s ghostwriting — another serious violation. Ghostwriting without acknowledgment contravenes the authorship criteria of ICMJE, COPE, and most major publishers. It deceives reviewers, funders, and readers about who actually conducted and wrote the research.

Additionally, “Julia” proposed that I act as a facilitator, helping manuscripts bypass peer review by using my editorial role to “guarantee” acceptance. This kind of gatekeeping-for-hire undermines the integrity of academic publishing, corrupts editorial independence, and makes a mockery of the already fraying ideal of merit-based peer review. The suggested model of “Fast Publishing Cooperation” (i.e. when the acceleration of a publication is stimulated by a higher bribe structure) makes their whole suggestion even more unethical and illegal.  

Red Flags and Rotten Infrastructure

Red flags are everywhere. There is no registered entity named “Anzen Academy of Science” — the name itself is fabricated. The use of pseudonyms like “Julia,” who has no listed institutional affiliation, is also telling. The switch from email to WhatsApp raises further suspicion. The fact that they use crypto and obscure payment systems like “Perfect Money” speaks volumes, too — these are classic hallmarks of money laundering operations.

A closer look at the conversation and the attachments they provided reveals more about their structure. It appears there may be a two-tier recruitment system: entry-level scouts cast a wide net by contacting academics en masse (in our case, “Julia”), and once a target shows interest, the contact is handed off to someone more senior — someone presumably closer to the paper mill’s core operation, perhaps already in possession of manuscripts waiting for “placement” (in this case, “Ariana”).

The screenshots they shared suggest a very busy operation. Every 5–10 minutes, there’s communication with someone else. While full identities are obscured, one name stood out: “A. Tayanloo.” This possibly refers to Akram Tayanloo-Beik from Iran, whose publication record in Google Scholar reveals a remarkable scientific Renaissance figure. Curiously, Tayanloo publishes only review articles — over 30 of them since 2021 — on wildly diverse topics: extracellular vesicles and cancer stem cells, the “wonders” of stem cells in COPD, use of zebrafish in autism research, and organ-on-a-chip models for ALS, for example Arjmand et al 2022 , Tayanloo-Beik et al 2022 , Tayanloo-Beik et al 2023, Tayanloo-Beik et al 2024, all with former high-ranking official in Iran’s Ministry of Health, Bagher Larijani (read July 2024 Shorts!).

And is “Dr Fakhri” the infamous Ali Fakhri?

Another screenshot we managed to extract from Anzen shows a rather dense payment schedule. Over the course of just a few weeks, more than $5,000 was paid out. If that is typical, this organization (or perhaps a single operative in a larger organization?) may be spending upwards of $100,000 per year on its “collaborators.” Some of the payments — $1,500 each — were clearly for entire articles. Others, at $50, were presumably for production of figures. It is possible that different freelancers specialize in fake figure creation, adding another layer of subcontracted fraud to the ecosystem.

Anatomy of a Paper – Mill Manuscript

The manuscript they sent me for “placement” bears all the hallmarks of paper-mill output. The topic — long non-coding RNAs, especially in the context of cancer — is a known papermill favorite, alongside miRNAs, circRNAs and non-coding RNAs (Byrne et al 2019, Bricker-Anthony et al 2023). A quick analysis by Smut Clyde uncovered the usual signs: experimental timelines “telescoped” together, an incorrect equation for xenograft tumor calculations, a reference list largely unrelated to the text but packed with citation-boosting entries. According to Smut, “ImageTwin didn’t recognize any of the images. But if they were algorithmically generated, there is no reason why it should.”

Conclusion: Fraud as a Career Option – Customers and Enablers

It’s clear that any academically corrupt individual — particularly one with editorial connections — could easily “place” dozens of these Anzen products into indexed journals and collect a handsome side income in the process.

Anzen is not a new operation. As noted in introduction, I was first contacted by this same group in 2023. They were already operating then with the exact same pricing structure. (Apparently, paper-mill inflation still lags behind consumer inflation.) They don’t have an official website, of course, but traces of them are visible online as far back as 2021. On Quora, and on Steemit, someone lists an old version of their site. One archived page from four years ago even named a Wu Qingke as Anzen’s co-founder and features a partial list of papers for sale:

It seems, then, that the Anzen operation is not just in-your-face unethical — it is also thriving. It operates in broad daylight, with zero oversight, zero consequences, and not a single institution, agency, or journal publisher is raising attention to it, let alone trying to shut it down. And this is only one of many organizations –– probably hundreds, if not thousands  –– which operates using the same “business model”. 

This is part of what’s going on in academic publishing in 2025. This is what we get when publication metrics become goals, rather than indicators. This is what happens when careerist pressure and opportunism form an unholy alliance. Sure, we can point fingers at greed. Sure, we can bemoan the absence of regulation. But let’s not kid ourselves. This rotten ecosystem exists for two simple reasons: (1) there is a large market for it and (2) there are plenty of publication industry insiders who make it possible. The papermills industry needs buyers — scientists willing to pay for fake authorship — but it also needs corrupt editors and reviewers, who work with them, lay their pockets, and push this garbage into the indexed literature. Without customers and without enablers there would be no paper mills. Look at Anzen’s price list: they don’t just aim for lowly journals with Impact Factors of 1-2; they also aim for journals with Impact Factors of 10 and higher.  And they pay very handsomely for those. Top-of-the range: $24,000 for a single accepted article in a top journal.

It would be nice to believe that we are dealing with a fringe phenomenon. But this is not the case. The estimates on the extent of the problem vary wildly: some suggest that merely a few percent of the scientific literature is affected, while others claim the number could be as high as 20–40% and the trends show a steady year-to-year increase (Nature 2023, Science 2023, Heathers 2024). 

The cancer isn’t on the fringe — it has metastasized into the core.

---