The Risky Business of Publishing: case study

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust recently identified an example of poor-quality, misleading, and unethical research published in a well-known journal.

In spring 2026, we were doing our annual review of the Trust's research publications. As part of this process, we work with a Christie clinician to analyse publication metrics and report findings to senior stakeholders.

During the review, our clinical colleague noticed an unusual paper affiliated to The Christie. As the subject matter fell within their area of expertise and they were unfamiliar with the publication, they decided to investigate further.

A brief review revealed several significant concerns:

• The paper reported patient outcomes data that had not been officially released and was being collected as part of a major research study due to be published in 2028
• The primary and corresponding author were the same person (these roles are often split for quality and to distribute the workload)
• A personal Gmail account was used for correspondence
• The listed affiliation was "Oncology Department, The Christie National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester, GBR" - a department that does not exist within the Trust
• The named co-authors did not appear to be real people and there was no record of them working at The Christie
• The paper contained a number of unusual and implausible claims. A Christie subject matter expert reviewed the article and described it as "nonsense."
• The same expert strongly suspected that the manuscript had been generated using AI but there was no disclosure of AI assistance.

Most worrying was the unauthorised publication of patient outcomes data and the inclusion of misleading, potentially harmful claims.

Following escalation to senior leaders, the author was identified as a former student who had completed a placement in 2022. During the placement, they had been asked to analyse patient data under the supervision of a consultant. It appears that they then kept access to the data and used it to publish an article several years later without permission.

During the investigation, we identified a second article by the same author. It was published one month later. Unlike the first paper, this publication focused on sleep apnoea rather than cancer and did not claim any affiliation with The Christie.

Nevertheless, several similarities between the two articles raised further concerns about the legitimacy of the peer-review process in the journal and the individuals use of AI.

Following the retraction of both papers, the Christie Library Manager raised concerns with the publisher and journal. The response was largely dismissive, with the journal maintaining that the papers had undergone peer review and that most of the identified issues were not problematic.

However, it did concede that the author's account had been permanently suspended.

The journal has since had its impact factor suspended and has been delisted from Web of Science.

This case highlighted how difficult it can be to identify questionable publications, particularly when they appear in established journals.

For librarians, it reinforces the importance of challenging publishers about their responsibility to maintain robust editorial and peer-review standards and ensuring that students on placement are reminded of their responsibilities regarding research integrity and ethical publishing practice.