IJCOPE Journal

UGC Logo DOI / ISO Logo

International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management

A Peer-Reviewed, Open-Access International Journal Supporting Multidisciplinary Research, Digital Publishing Standards, DOI Registration, and Academic Indexing.
Journal Information
ISSN: 3108-1754 (Online)
Crossref DOI: Available
ISO Certification: 9001:2015
Publication Fee: 599/- INR
Compliance: UGC Journal Norms
License: CC BY 4.0
Peer Review: Double Blind
Volume 02, Issue 6

Published on: June 2026

FAKESCHOLAR: A MULTIMODAL DEEP LEARNING FRAMEWORK FOR DETECTING FRAUDULENT ACADEMIC RESEARCH

Mahak Keshav Prabhakar Priyanka Sharma Tanushka Gupta

Dr. Shiv Kumar Sharma

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, ITM Gwalior, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India

Article Status

Plagiarism Passed Peer Reviewed Open Access

Available Documents

Abstract

The proliferation of AI-generated manuscripts, paper mill publications, and fabricated experimental data has precipitated a crisis of integrity in academic publishing, with more than 50,000 retracted papers catalogued by the Retraction Watch database to date. Existing detection tools, including GPTZero and the Turnitin AI detection module, operate exclusively on surface-level textual features, rendering them vulnerable to sophisticated paraphrasing attacks and categorically blind to structural manipulation in citation networks. This paper introduces FakeScholar, a multimodal deep learning framework that jointly analyses paper text content, citation graph topology, author collaboration networks, and reported statistical anomalies to classify academic papers as genuine or fraudulent. FakeScholar integrates a fine-tuned SciBERT encoder, a three-layer Graph Convolutional Network (GCN) operating over citation graphs, a GraphSAGE-based author network encoder, and an Isolation Forest statistical anomaly detector. The four modality representations are fused via a two-layer multilayer perceptron (MLP) to produce a calibrated binary fraud probability. Evaluated on a curated benchmark dataset of 50,000 papers equally balanced between genuine and fraudulent samples drawn from Retraction Watch, known paper mill repositories, synthetically generated AI papers, arXiv, PubMed Central, and the Semantic Scholar Open Research Corpus, FakeScholar achieves an F1 score of 0.912, an AUROC of 0.961, and an accuracy of 91.4%, outperforming the strongest single-modality baseline by 12.3 percentage points in F1. Ablation studies confirm that the citation graph encoder contributes the largest individual performance gain, its removal causing a 10.7 percentage-point decline in F1. Robustness experiments demonstrate that FakeScholar maintains an F1 of 0.874 on aggressively paraphrased AI-generated papers, compared to 0.631 for text-only baselines. FakeScholar introduces a unified multimodal architecture for identifying academic misconduct, providing the groundwork for seamless real-time integration into scholarly publishing and manuscript evaluation platforms.

Index Terms—academic fraud detection, multimodal deep learning, citation graph analysis, AI-generated text detection, SciBERT, graph neural networks, paper mills

How to Cite this Paper

Mahak, , Prabhakar, K., Sharma, P. & Gupta, T. (2026). FakeScholar: A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Detecting Fraudulent Academic Research. International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, <i>02</i>(6). https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.262

Mahak, , et al.. "FakeScholar: A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Detecting Fraudulent Academic Research." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management, vol. 02, no. 6, 2026, pp. . doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.262.

Mahak, ,Keshav Prabhakar,Priyanka Sharma, and Tanushka Gupta. "FakeScholar: A Multimodal Deep Learning Framework for Detecting Fraudulent Academic Research." International Journal of Creative and Open Research in Engineering and Management 02, no. 6 (2026). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijcope.v2i6.262.

Search & Index

References


  1. Oransky and A. Marcus, “Retraction Watch,” 2010. [Online]. Avail-able: https://retractionwatch.com

  2. P. A. Ioannidis, “Why most published research findings are false,” PLOS Medicine, vol. 2, no. 8, p. e124, Aug. 2005.

  3. M. Bik, A. Casadevall, and F. C. Fang, “The prevalence of inap-propriate image duplication in biomedical research publications,” mBio, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. e00809-16, May/Jun. 2016.

  4. Else, “How this paper mill detected 400 potentially fake cancer papers,” Nature, vol. 591, pp. 19–20, Mar. 2021.

  5. A. Byrne and J. Christopher, “Digital magic or sleight of hand? Lessons learned from the paper mill phenomenon and potential futures for the academic publishing system,” Research Integrity and Peer Review, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 22, Nov. 2020.

  6. Van Noorden, “Publishers: Stem the tide of fake academic papers,” Nature, vol. 603, pp. 206–207, Mar. 2022.

  7. OpenAI, “GPT-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.

  8. Demir, “Hallucinated but authoritative: The epistemic risks of AI-authored academic manuscripts,” Accountability in Research, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 134–151, 2024.

  9. Tian, “GPTZero: Towards detection of AI-generated text using zero-shot and supervised methods,” GPTZero Technical Report, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://gptzero.me

  10. Turnitin LLC, “Turnitin AI writing detection,” Turnitin White Paper, [Online]. Available: https://www.turnitin.com/solutions/ai-writing

Ethical Compliance & Review Process

  • All submissions are screened under plagiarism detection.
  • Review follows editorial policy.
  • Authors retain copyright.
  • Peer Review Type: Double-Blind Peer Review
  • Published on: Jun 20 2026
CCBYNC

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

View License
Scroll to Top