What’s in a Name: Fictitious Authors in Science
Whose name is on the scholarly paper matters
Real, fictitious, fraudulent? A co-authoring cat? At some point, when developing Trust Markers for scholarly literature, it became clear that knowing whether a paper is written by—well, a scientist—is essential. Authorship isn’t just a byline; it’s a signal of credibility and accountability in research. But what happens when that credibility is undermined, not by flawed research, but by the names themselves?
In this post, we explore the fascinating world of fictitious authorship—cases where names on research papers turn out to be fabrications. These “apparitions”, often invented by real people for very different purposes, reveal more profound stories about the games and scams in science. These cases highlight how trust in scholarly communication is built and broken, from fictitious authors and fabricated affiliations to protests against systemic bias, to geek-filled humor.
Fictitious Author, Fictitious University, Real Work
(With apologies to all Italian speakers who read this. )
In 1987, a groundbreaking paper titled “Diffusion in a Periodic Lorentz Gas” was published, credited to three authors: two physicists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and a supposed Italian collaborator, Dr. Stronzo Bestiale, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Palermo, Sicily. The catch? Neither Dr. Bestiale nor his institution existed. The name itself, translating to “giant asshole” in Italian, was an intentional fabrication—one that slipped past editors and peer reviewers alike.
The real authors, Drs. Moran and Hoover were frustrated by repeated rejections of their research. They hypothesized that adding an Italian co-author would make their work more publishable, and they were right. Including the fictitious Italian resulted in acceptance, and the paper has since been cited over 140 times.
While the fabrication was deceptive, the research itself remains valuable and impactful, illustrating a rare exception where the integrity of the work was not compromised by the questionable means of its publication. Still, it highlights systemic biases in academia that can drive researchers to such lengths. And that was 1987. Things have changed since then.
Fictitious Author, Real University
In other cases (and these are just two examples) fictitous authors are invented but a they are given a legitimate academic institution that none of the co-authors are associated with. This ostensibly is for the other authors (the human ones) to be more likely to be published. However, this causes the real problem that these apparitions are associated with an academic institution, and who is responsible for disassociating this connection is unclear.
Example: Beatriz Ychussie emerged as a (fake) Danish coauthor at Roskilde University. Read more about it on Retraction Watch
Example: Nicholas Zafetti, another apparition and creative name choice, shows up at Clemson University. You can read more on the PubPeer comments.
Fictitious Authors, Other Motivations
Having ideas and research published can be challenging. Besides the massive amount of work and writing that goes into a paper, it should be peer-reviewed and hopefully cited. In the following two examples, one person used fictitious authors as peer-reviewers to expedite the paper's publication. In the second example, the author created dubious papers with fictitious authors that amazingly cited his work.
Fake Authors in Peer Review
In some cases, fictitious authors have been used to manipulate peer review itself. Shunjie Chua, for example, added “Mark Pitts” and “Peter Lamark” as fake coauthors on a paper, not only falsifying authorship but also exploiting the peer review system to expedite publication. This manipulation underscores a critical concern: who reviews the paper is also vital to trust. https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/05/fake-peer-review-made-up-author-take-down-a-paper/
Fake Authors for Citation Boost
In a more elaborate scheme, Dr. Yibin Lin created fictitious authors and affiliations to submit dubious papers to bioRxiv and medRxiv, preprint repositories, without listing himself as an author. The goal? To generate citations for his other work while masking his involvement. While some of the coauthors listed in his submissions were real people, it remains unclear whether they were consulted or aware of their inclusion. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/04/2021-02273/findings-of-research-misconduct
Fictitious Author as Civil Disobedience
Not all instances of fictitious authorship stem from fraud; some are deliberate acts of civil disobedience. In one case, they spotlight systemic inequities in science, where the distribution of credit, resources, and opportunities is heavily skewed due to deeply ingrained unjust practices and incentives. As one analysis notes, these biases are “hardwired into science’s rules, guidelines, and conventions.”
One striking example is Camille Nous, a fictional French researcher whose name has appeared in nearly 200 publications. Created by a collective of authors, Camille Nous represents a protest against the hyper-individualism of academic recognition. By adopting this shared pseudonym, the group underscores that scientific progress is a collaborative endeavor, not the work of lone geniuses.
Fictitious Author, Fictitious Work, Humor in Science
(Some may not find these funny or understand their purpose, but alas, some do - particularly physicists. )
Fake authorship can range from serious misconduct to humorous or symbolic acts that highlight systemic issues or showcase creativity. Among the lighter examples is the work of Dr. Eve Armstrong, a prolific researcher with over 40 publications. Many of her publications focus on complex topics like modeling neuronal networks in songbirds. However, some of her most amusing contributions lie in her playful takes on science.
One such example is a paper co-authored by Chester, her cat. Chester joins the ranks of other famous feline co-authors, such as F.D.C. Willard, a pseudonym for a cat named Chester who was listed as a co-author on an influential physics paper .
Dr. Armstrong’s sense of humor also shines in her paper on the “Non-detection of the Tooth Fairy at Optical Wavelengths.” She tackles the “perplexing fetish” of the Tooth Fairy for discarded human remains, reporting a failure to detect the elusive figure at optical wavelengths. I’ve always been curious as to what happened to the teeth.
While these playful contributions may not solve real-world problems, they showcase the lighter side of scientific inquiry and researchers' creativity. For some of us, they are pure enjoyment. These examples, though humorous, are mostly harmless and serve as reminders of the human (and occasionally feline) side of research.
BUT, it would be very good to have metadata stating these are not serious scientific works. Humor does not always translate well in other languages, fields, or species.
Concluding Thoughts
While many of these instances stem from individual actions, they point to broader concerns about the integrity of science. These examples highlight how the misuse of fictitious authors extends beyond isolated incidents, revealing systemic vulnerabilities that distort science. As always, the problems highlighted here emphasize the need for stronger safeguards to uphold research integrity.
In future posts, we’ll explore how these individual cases connect to more organized forms of manipulation in research, which leads to the broader topic that problems with research integrity lead to problems in research security.
Short History and Disclosure
I started working on the problem of authorship scams in 2020 with my team at Ripeta. Those endeavors moved into Digital Science, where I now work. And just out, there is a product to support checking authors. The point is, I like discovering pathways of trust and mistrust in and around science. What I really like is supporting better science through action, and I currently get to do that where I work.