Meet the Experts: Manman Wang

True and false signals both add value

As a screening analyst, Manman’s role is to detect potential fraud and unethical behavior in submitted manuscripts during the pre-publication process. Screening submissions at this stage means that manuscripts with integrity concerns can be identified before they are published, thereby preventing problematic content from entering the scientific record.  

On a typical day, Manman starts by validating the signals of potential concern flagged by Elsevier’s in-house developed integrity tools. Manuscripts with validated integrity concerns are placed on hold while Manman and colleagues consult with the journal’s editors. Together, they also work to raise and resolve concerns with authors or reject the manuscript if needed.  

In addition, screening analysts are often able to uncover new patterns of misbehavior, which then feed into policy revisions and updates, inform future investigations and advance our detection capabilities.  

Every signal, regardless of the editorial decision on the paper, serves to protect research integrity and enhance the team’s ability to root out ever more subtle anomalies. It’s satisfying work, Manman says. 

 “As the tool evolves, screening analysts like me aim to prevent as many future post-publication misconduct cases as possible. Every time a problematic manuscript is rejected, or the detection technology has been advanced based on the team’s feedback, we feel a sense of achievement.” 

Technology that is boosted by human expertise

Often, the primary signal detected by Elsevier’s in-house tools is just the first loose thread in a process that then moves into human hands. A validated positive signal(s) may lead the Analyst or editor to uncover other integrity concerns. In all cases, anomalies help to both improve the tool, alert the team to wider or new forms of deception, and prevent the manuscript from reaching publication.  

In a recent case, a manuscript was flagged for unauthorized authorship changes. Manman identified the signals and contacted the editor in charge. “The editor identified additional misconduct related to authorship changes and rejected the manuscript because of these additional concerns,” she says. “I reported the potential areas for improvement in the technology. This is an example of how my work contributes to upholding research integrity.” 

The team’s expertise coupled with the latest and constantly improving detection technology provide a powerful pushback against paper mills and other forms of systematic misconduct.  

“As publishers, what we need to do is prevent the problematic manuscripts from being published in the first place, and to resolve the cases that are identified after publication more effectively and transparently,” she says. 

The work of the Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics team is key to addressing this challenge, she says, and it does this by constantly improving detection tools and building a diverse team of specialists.  

“The varied expertise within the team provides valuable perspectives and ideas for detecting and preventing ethical malpractice. We also share our observations and insights and learn from colleagues across the wider organization to facilitate better outcomes,” Manman says.