I had grown weary of the fixed stream and abuse of spam invites to submit manuscripts to journals and to attend faux conferences on the opposite aspect of the world, a pattern extensively studied in academia.1,2 The final straw: a solicitation from the Clinical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, nicely exterior my work in arithmetic training.
Accepting the problem, I made a decision to submit a intentionally nonsensical, AI-generated manuscript in response to look at how the people behind these supposed journals function.
In October 2025, I wrote to somebody named Henry Jackson, who had sent the article invitation in August (even if no such individual is listed on the journal’s web site). I despatched a manuscript generated completely by ChatGPT to check how far a publication created with zero real effort may go and whether or not there was any filtering mechanism in place to forestall a meaningless article from being revealed.
I proposed the next title in my reply: “Obstetric Paradoxes and Didactic Equations: The Impact of Mathematical Teaching on Childbirth and Beyond.” The summary learn:
In an unprecedented quantum leap in interdisciplinary analysis, we introduce the idea of ‘Gyneco-Obstetric Algebraic Didactics’ (GOAD). This paper explores the influence of educating mathematical fashions utilizing obstetric metaphors on the cognitive flexibility of third-trimester sufferers and first-year arithmetic college students alike. Through the introduction of the Ovary-Function Theorem (OFT) and the applying of the Cervix-Dilation Equation (D = √πr2), the research reveals that explaining non-Euclidean areas by means of pelvic retroversion considerably improves calculus take a look at scores and reduces delivery anxiousness by 13.7%. A case research with pregnant mathematicians and aspiring gynecologists demonstrates that integrating the Fibonacci sequence into labor development charts induces spontaneous appreciation for summary algebra and gentle cravings for prime numbers. These findings problem the standard boundaries between prenatal care and set principle, suggesting that mathematical didactics and obstetric gynecology, when merged, can delivery new paradigms in each fields. Further analysis is inspired, particularly within the context of cesarean matrices and post-partum group principle.
On October 29, I acquired the next response from somebody named Amelia Sandra, from the journal’s editorial workplace (who can also be not listed among the many journal’s workers): “We request that you submit the full-length article on your research so that we can forward it to our quality department for evaluation.” I requested ChatGPT to generate a full article (clearly absurd and fully fictitious) according to the submitted title and summary. I intentionally included graphs that defined nothing and outcomes that had been completely implausible. The conclusions had been patently unbelievable. A cursory look on the paper would have been sufficient to appreciate it made no sense by any means.
At this level, I resorted to a small deception and submitted the article below a pseudonym, as I had no intention of gaining any profit from the publication, nor of getting it seem amongst my real educational works. I selected a pseudonym much like my actual title, “Pascual Chiago,” since I needed to submit the manuscript from my official college e mail account.
I left different apparent indicators that the article was a joke, corresponding to references to non-existent journals and authors with relatively specific surnames (e.g., Sneakydez, Trickón, Sneakarez, Hoodvez, Cheatillo) hoping that anybody would clearly see the false nature of the article. On November 3, I submitted the AI-generated article on the influence of arithmetic training on unborn kids.
Minutes later, I acquired a response from Amelia stating that my article had been forwarded to their “professional review team.” At this level, I assumed my experiment would finish there.
I used to be incorrect. On November 12 a sure Susan Lee (additionally not listed on the journal’s web site) demanded a direct response inside 24 hours to the evaluate feedback on the submitted paper, despite the fact that I had not beforehand acquired any e mail with evaluate feedback. The tone was threatening and insisted on fee of the bill. I acquired six an identical emails with the evaluate feedback.
Fortunately — or amusingly — the manuscript was rated as “ACCEPTED WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS.” The review letter praised the manuscript as “fairly written and interesting” and recommended my “hard work.” Among the requested revisions had been strategies that made little sense, together with calls for that I cite unrelated journals such because the Journal of Molecular Liquids and Spectrochimica Acta.
Pressed for time and more and more irritated, I resubmitted the identical file 5 minutes later, randomly highlighting passages in yellow and making no precise adjustments. I additionally added the requested citations with out checking their existence, inventing authors and titles to additional take a look at whether or not anybody was genuinely overseeing the method. The references included authors explicitly named to counsel fabrication (e.g., “Me-Lo, I.” and “Nvent, O.”, names that, when learn in Spanish, sound like ‘me lo invento’, which means ‘I’m making it up’).
Within lower than an hour, I acquired last acceptance from the editor. Shortly after, I used to be despatched an invoice for APCs amounting to USD $2,949, payable inside two to 3 days.
Naturally, I had no intention of paying such a sum. So after I acquired a payment reminder e mail on November 18 signed by Robbie Williams, I made a decision to increase the joke barely additional so they could notice they had been those being deceived this time. I replied angrily and embedded references to songs by the singer Robbie Williams (the true one), with a fake receipt attached from the “CheatBank of Spain” generated by AI. Perhaps the faux bill was extreme, nevertheless it felt like poetic justice.
I assumed the matter would finish there. However, just a few days later, after recounting the story to a colleague, I found that the article had indeed been published on the journal’s web site with an assigned DOI.3 I had assumed that with out fee, publication wouldn’t proceed.
My e mail of November 18 was my final communication with them. Since then, Robbie Williams has continued to e mail me each 5 or 6 days requesting fee.
The paper has by some means introduced me again to the place I began. This week I acquired an unsolicited email from the convention supervisor of an upcoming gynecology meeting. It appears my paper “was identified as pertinent to themes under consideration.”
What was my intention in doing all this? Even right this moment I’m not completely positive, however I suppose that, first, I used to be searching for a form of vendetta towards the malicious spam emails that teachers obtain each day.
Second, I wished to show what we’re repeatedly informed in coaching programs about predatory journals: The equipment designed to take advantage of the educational system is devoid of scientific rigor and moral requirements. But I don’t suppose I wanted AI to inform us that.
Pascual D. Diago is a professor within the Department of Teaching of Mathematics on the University of Valencia in Spain. His (actual) analysis is on the usage of new applied sciences in educating arithmetic.
This article was authored by Pascual D. Diago, and it was first revealed at Retraction Watch.