Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Google Scholar is manipulatable

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.04607 v1 pith:73DQR7J5 submitted 2024-02-07 cs.CE cs.DLcs.SIphysics.soc-ph

classification cs.CEcs.DLcs.SIphysics.soc-ph
keywords citationcitationsscientistsgooglescholarcountspurchaseservice
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools