Another reason not to rest research #assessment or journal/publisher/university #rankings on #citation counts.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04607

"Intrigued by a citation-boosting service that we unravelled during our investigation, we contacted the service while undercover as a fictional author, and managed to purchase 50 citations. These findings provide conclusive evidence that citations can be bought in bulk, and highlight the need to look beyond citation counts."

#Fraud #JIF #Metrics

Google Scholar is manipulatable

Citations are widely considered in scientists' evaluation. As such, scientists may be incentivized to inflate their citation counts. While previous literature has examined self-citations and citation cartels, it remains unclear whether scientists can purchase citations. Here, we compile a dataset of ~1.6 million profiles on Google Scholar to examine instances of citation fraud on the platform. We survey faculty at highly-ranked universities, and confirm that Google Scholar is widely used when evaluating scientists. Intrigued by a citation-boosting service that we unravelled during our investigation, we contacted the service while undercover as a fictional author, and managed to purchase 50 citations. These findings provide conclusive evidence that citations can be bought in bulk, and highlight the need to look beyond citation counts.

arXiv.org

Update. " 'The capacity to purchase citations in bulk is a new and worrying development,' says Jennifer Byrne, a cancer researcher at the University of Sydney who has studied problematic publications in the biomedical literature…A researcher’s h-index and the number of citations they’ve garnered are often used for hiring and promotion decisions."
https://www.science.org/content/article/vendor-offering-citations-purchase-latest-bad-actor-scholarly-publishing

#Fraud #JIF #Metrics #Misconduct

Update. Six months later, 𝘕𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 summarizes this sting operation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01672-7
The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists

The ways in which researchers can artificially inflate their reference counts are growing.

@petersuber
Pretty regular to some degree? it will probably take another 6mo-year to make it into mainstream media?
Goes without saying for everything there is a season I guess? Look how long it took Quanta and Sci-American to write on the dark energy that came out recently.However the meeting of physicists was in April.? I think yesterday articles came out.
@petersuber
good point.
I figure theres no bad press on the article though predatory journals bring a level of harm to the whole ecosystem. At least in my biased eyes :)Many non-academics have a certain level of trust in the journal.
Mistakes happen in any institution or journal perhaps bc/ we are human and flawed.
I guess its wether we learn from them or not?

@petersuber

Gee, maybe - just maybe - the entire publish-or-perish and highly profitable journals system itself is the root of the problem. We were taught peer review would suss out all problems, but that was a smokescreen as the only mechanism allowed it is to publish a rebuttal in the same highly siloed journal.