China’s Supreme People’s Court has finally decided to take aim at one of academia’s most lucrative black markets: paper mills. These operations mass-produce dubious research, slap willing buyers’ names on the byline, and flood journals with fluff designed to pad CVs. The court’s new guidance signals an escalation in the government’s long-running battle against scientific fraud, but whether this crackdown will actually work is another question entirely.
“This is the first time the supreme court has issued guidance on paper mills and on scientific fraud,” says Wang Fei, a research-integrity policy expert at Dalian University of Technology. Translation: The problem has become too big to ignore.
Paper mills thrive because the academic system rewards publication volume over actual innovation. Researchers desperate for more citations—or just another promotion—pay for ghostwritten studies that may or may not be real. China has been ground zero for this industry, but it’s hardly an isolated phenomenon.
Last month, the Supreme People’s Court published a set of guiding opinions on technological innovation, and buried among the usual bureaucratic proclamations was a clear directive: Shut down these “paper industry chains” and punish research fraud aggressively. Sounds dramatic, but China has been tightening the screws for years, rolling out policies designed to curb misconduct.
The results? Mixed, at best. Enforcement has been inconsistent, and despite government pressure, paper mills continue churning out manuscripts like academic sweatshops. Yin Bo, a lawyer and criminal-justice researcher at China University of Political Science and Law, puts it plainly: “Paper mills are very popular in China, and there is a very huge business involving them.” In other words, demand isn’t slowing down any time soon.
Still, the supreme court’s involvement suggests China is taking a more legalistic approach—one that could bring real consequences for offenders. Yin sees this as a key shift, as courts have gradually stopped treating ghostwriting contracts as legitimate business agreements. A decade ago, if a scientist paid a paper mill for a study and got scammed, they could sue for breach of contract. Now, courts are more likely to declare such contracts void on ethical grounds.
Evidence of this shift is showing up in court records. Gengyan Tang, a research integrity expert at the University of Calgary, identified 41 cases involving ghostwriting services between 2013 and 2024 in a search of public court rulings. Some were civil disputes—angry customers suing paper mills over undelivered work. Others were more serious, signaling a growing willingness to treat research fraud as a real crime.
Six or seven years ago, paper mill contracts were treated as valid—transactions between consenting parties. Now? The courts see them as part of a larger corruption problem in academia, one that undermines China’s long-term ambitions in science and technology.
It makes sense. A nation that wants to dominate global research can’t afford an academic system built on smoke and mirrors. China has already overtaken the U.S. in scientific output by sheer volume, but quality? That’s another debate. If the government wants its researchers to be taken seriously, cracking down on fraudulent publications might be a necessary evil.
But paper mills are resourceful. As enforcement ramps up, they’ll likely evolve—going underground, shifting tactics, maybe even finding new markets outside of China. The war on fake science is far from over, and the next move belongs to those running the mills.
Five Fast Facts
- China now produces more scientific papers annually than the U.S., but concerns over research integrity have plagued its rise.
- Some paper mills offer bespoke “peer-reviewed” studies for as little as a few thousand dollars.
- Ghostwriting in academia dates back centuries—some of Isaac Newton’s contemporaries allegedly outsourced their work.
- In 2020, a single Russian paper mill was linked to over 400 fraudulent medical studies.
- Despite crackdowns, some fake studies still make it through peer review and influence real-world policy.