A recent analysis reveals a disconcerting trend where mathematicians from institutions in China, Saudi Arabia, and other regions are artificially inflating their colleagues' citation counts through the creation of low-quality papers referencing their own work. This phenomenon, known as "citation cartels," aims to enhance the rankings of their respective universities, potentially influencing financial gains. The impact is such that universities lacking a strong tradition in mathematics now outpace renowned institutions like Stanford and Princeton in producing highly cited math papers.
Experts in publication practices assert that the motivation behind these cartels is the high stakes associated with university rankings, capable of influencing millions of dollars in funding. In response to these unscrupulous practices, Clarivate, a prominent publishing analytics company, has excluded the entire field of mathematics from its latest list of authors of highly cited papers.
The comprehensive analysis, conducted by mathematician Domingo Docampo from the University of Vigo, exposes the systematic manipulation of citation counts over the past 15 years. Institutions with little mathematical tradition, predominantly from China, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, have surpassed established names like UCLA and Princeton in generating highly cited papers. Patterns in the data suggest that citation cartels are at play, with top papers often cited by researchers from the same institution as the authors.
Notably, China Medical University in Taiwan, a newcomer in the arena, emerged as the leader with 95 highly cited math papers between 2021 and 2023. Docampo found that these cartels often published their studies in predatory journals, where unscrupulous citation practices find acceptance.
While some institutions implicated in the analysis deny engaging in these practices, the evidence points to widespread citation manipulation. Clarivate, acknowledging the vulnerability of the mathematics field due to its size, is seeking advice from external experts to refine its approach to the analysis.
Critics argue that singling out mathematics may unfairly tarnish the field's reputation. The situation underscores broader issues with the current system of evaluation, with citations deemed an imperfect measure of scientific quality. Researchers call for more refined metrics that consider the quality of citing journals and institutions to address these challenges in academic assessment.
More: https://www.science.org/content/article/citation-cartels-help-some-mathematicians-and-their-universities-climb-rankings
