An article in @insidehighered argues that universities may be helping to create the research integrity problems they are trying to solve. The argument is simple: if we judge academic success largely by publication counts, journal prestige and citations, we should not be surprised when people find ways to maximise those numbers. That can mean salami-slicing research, citation gaming, purchased authorship, paper mills and, increasingly, AI-assisted fraud. The authors suggest a different approach: assess fewer papers, but assess them properly; broaden our definition of impact; and pay much closer attention to suspicious citation practices. Perhaps the bigger question is this: Are research integrity problems really just problems with individual researchers, or are they also a predictable consequence of the systems universities have created to measure academic success? Read the full articlle here: buff.ly/e3qvuzG