Abstract
The growth of generative AI and easily available Open Access health datasets has transformed researcher productivity, leading to an explosion in publications that has in part been attributed to paper mills (organisations that provide manuscripts for payment) and other unethical actors. These entities are not, however, homogenous, and have a range of products and target markets. While the demand from China has received much attention, here we provide a case study of CDC WONDER, a dataset that has been exploited by a network of researchers reporting affiliations in Pakistan, the United States and the UK, potentially linked to medical residency driven demand from junior clinicians or trainees. The number of publications using CDC WONDER grew from 88 in 2021 to 1223 in 2025. Over the same time period, the proportion of papers reporting at least one author from Pakistan grew from 0.5% in 2021 to 27.2% in 2025, with unusually extensive collaboration networks. In some cases these works featured over 15 co-authors, often including representation from Western institutions, but in spite of this high level of resourcing only resulted in straightforward analyses of well-described conditions using publicly available data. The majority of these outputs additionally show evidence of being produced from a template, with formulaic titles and identical methods, for example using the same statistical model and platform (Joinpoint regression). Identifying papers produced by fast-churn workflows is essential to protect the integrity of the scientific literature from being flooded with low-quality research. This can be achieved through more proactive desk rejection of misleading and formulaic mass-produced submissions, and through better understanding of which use cases are appropriate for different Open Science resources. With the growing capabilities of AI to mass produce research, education will be essential to assist critical appraisal and preserve the benefits of Open Science.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Matt Spick was supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI1095). Danny Maupin was supported by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI2604).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
