Paper mills pose a serious threat to the reliability of the scholarly record, and public critics have often identified cross-journal patterns that conventional editorial processes failed to detect. The legitimacy of this work, however, does not remove the need to calibrate public terminology. When a severe organisational label such as "paper mill" is combined with a national descriptor, the apparent scope of the claim can expand from a defined set of papers to authors, institutions, or an entire research community. This Perspective develops an evidence-and-scope framework for evaluating that expansion. It draws on research about paper mills, citation manipulation, image anomalies, stigma, and research assessment, and it uses the publicly available Science Integrity Digest post "The Iranian Plant Paper Mill" as an illustrative case. The analysis does not determine whether the papers discussed in that post originated from a paper mill and does not allege misconduct by the post's author, commenters, or any researcher mentioned there. Instead, it examines the relationship among the evidence described, the title's geographic referent, the procedural status of the allegations, the use of pseudonymous observations, and the expansion of claims through comments. The article argues that national descriptors are not inherently improper, but they require an explicit analytic purpose, a defined unit of attribution, proportional treatment of transnational participation, and visible uncertainty and update mechanisms. It proposes a staged evidence-to-label vocabulary and a disclosure standard covering dataset boundaries, geographic meaning, verification, right of reply, comment moderation, and post-publication revision. These safeguards are intended to strengthen, rather than restrain, public research-integrity criticism by making serious warnings more precise, auditable, and resistant to collective overgeneralisation.