# Exploratory analysis of text duplication in peer-review reveals peer-review fraud and paper mills

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03310 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03310/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21904/) (2026)
- [Examining the Relationship between Scientific Publishing Activity and Hype-Driven Financial Bubbles: A Comparison of the Dot-Com and AI Eras](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.11982/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Comments received from referees during peer-review were analysed to determine the rates of duplication and partial duplication. It is very unusual for 2 different referees to submit identical comments, so the rare cases where this happens are of interest. In some cases, it appears that paper-mills create fake referee accounts and use them to submit fake peer-review reports. These include comments that are copied and pasted across multiple reviews. Searching for duplication in referee comments is therefore an effective method to search for misconduct generally, since the forms of misconduct committed by paper-mills go beyond peer-review fraud. These search methods allow the automatic detection of misconduct candidates which may then be investigated carefully to confirm if misconduct has indeed taken place. There are innocent reasons why referees might share template reports, so these methods are not intended to automatically diagnose misconduct.