Fake Scientists and AI: Research Gold Scheme Exposed

The service Research Gold, which offered the preparation of scientific manuscripts, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, positioned itself as a platform exclusively featuring human specialists. However, a 404 Media investigation revealed that a significant portion of the site was created by generative AI, and the claimed experts in most cases have no real record of scientific activity.

Investigation Details

404 Media reports that almost all content on the Research Gold website is the product of generative AI. This applies to both texts and the profile photos of the “scientists.” Emanuel Maiberg, who attempted to contact the company, found that an AI-based agent responded to all queries in chats and email correspondence, refusing to admit its nature while persistently trying to sell the platform’s services.

Simulated Expert Staff

On the “About Us” page, the company described a supposedly real team of experts. Among them were:

• Dr. Elena Vasquez, founder, with 12 years of experience in evidence synthesis in cardiology and infectious diseases.
• Dr. May-Ling Chen, specializing in policy briefs and grant applications.

None of the eight team members presented have any record of scientific activity, and a search for their names in academic publication databases yields no results.

Use of Stolen Identities

Moreover, in certain sections of the site, Research Gold used photos and biographies of real scientists. Journalists found that profiles were taken from LinkedIn without the owners’ knowledge. Jenny Berrio, a real data synthesis specialist, confirmed she had no connection to the service. After media outlets reached out to the site’s management, the section featuring real people was promptly removed.

As part of an experiment, a journalist sent a quote request for a project titled “The impact of blogging on children from 0 to 5 years old.” The AI “methodologist” replied automatically, providing a detailed invoice for $1900. This demonstrates the AI’s willingness to take on any topic for profit.

Risks to the Academic Community

Experts warn that the use of such tools discredits the scientific process. According to Sebastian Rowan, a graduate student at the University of New Hampshire, the main problem with generative AI is its tendency to hallucinate. True research requires critical thinking, deep source verification, and profound analysis—capabilities that “trained” chatbots simply lack.

The story of Research Gold demonstrates one of the most dangerous aspects of applying generative AI in the scientific sphere. Creating convincing profiles, automated responses, and a system ready to sell services creates an illusion of professional expertise that may not actually exist. Such practices can not only mislead clients but also further complicate the work of scientific journals, which are already struggling to combat the growing volume of AI-generated materials.