The University of Manchester has formally accused a former student, Sameer Quazi, of engaging in research misconduct, specifically operating a paper mill—an unethical enterprise that produces fraudulent or low-quality academic papers for profit. Following an internal investigation, the university has requested the retraction of 10 academic papers authored or co-authored by Quazi.
Quazi, who enrolled in the university’s postgraduate certificate (PGCert) program in clinical bioinformatics in 2021, is now pursuing a master’s degree in biomedical sciences at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge. His alleged involvement in running a paper mill has sent ripples through the academic community and highlights ongoing concerns about the integrity of scholarly publishing.
Investigation Unveils Widespread Misconduct
According to a January 30 statement by the University of Manchester, concerns about Quazi’s publication ethics were raised in September 2023. The university conducted a thorough investigation under its Code of Practice for Investigating Concerns about the Conduct of Research and concluded that multiple instances of misconduct were present in Quazi’s publications.
The investigation panel discovered that none of the research in the disputed papers was conducted at the University of Manchester. However, evidence indicated widespread issues such as manipulated data, problematic authorship claims, and irregularities typically associated with paper mills. As a result, the university contacted publishers to retract 10 papers from academic journals.
Previous Retractions and Questionable Publications
Quazi has already faced two retractions, both in 2023 from the Frontiers journal series. The first retraction involved his sole-authored paper titled “Application of biosensors in cancers, an overview” in Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology. The retraction notice cited a breach of authorship policies and publication ethics. Despite Quazi’s objection to the decision, the paper was officially retracted.
The second retracted paper, “New insights into molecular signalling pathways and current advancements in prostate cancer diagnostics and therapeutics,” appeared in Frontiers in Oncology, where Quazi was listed as the second author. The retraction notice stated similar ethical violations.
A PubMed search revealed that Quazi had 10 articles published between 2021 and 2022, covering topics such as the gut microbiome, AI in medicine, and cancer diagnostics. He was the sole author on eight of these publications, many of which have been flagged for further investigation. One of his papers was criticized on PubPeer for containing “tortured phrases” and problematic references—both hallmarks of paper mill-generated content.
Concerns over Citation Gaming and Academic Integrity
Quazi’s involvement in the alleged paper mill has raised concerns about the misuse of academic metrics, particularly citation-based rankings. In a LinkedIn post, Quazi previously commented on the flaws in university ranking systems, stating that relying heavily on citations can be problematic. Ironically, citation manipulation is a common tactic employed by paper mills to inflate the academic profiles of authors and institutions.
“While I appreciate the intention to challenge the current rankings system, boycotting may not be the most effective solution. It could be more beneficial to work towards improving the current ranking criteria or creating an alternative system that focuses on quality of teaching and research,” Quazi wrote on LinkedIn.
A Growing Problem in Scholarly Publishing
The case underscores the growing threat of paper mills in scholarly publishing, particularly in rapidly evolving fields like biomedical sciences, AI, and clinical research. Academic institutions and publishers are increasingly relying on AI-powered detection systems to combat fraudulent practices, but challenges persist as paper mills continue to exploit gaps in the peer-review process.
The University of Manchester’s findings reflect the broader academic community’s efforts to maintain integrity and trust in scientific research. However, the delay in identifying fraudulent publications highlights the need for stricter review processes and better mechanisms to screen for misconduct.
While the university did not disclose the specific journals where the retractions are requested, the outcome of this case may prompt further investigations into other authors and publications linked to Quazi.
Final Remarks
The academic world awaits responses from Quazi and Anglia Ruskin University, where he is currently enrolled, regarding the allegations. As research institutions and publishers strengthen their scrutiny of academic outputs, the case serves as a reminder that upholding ethical standards is vital to preserving the credibility of scholarly research.