The image of a researcher working in isolation is far from reality. Research is inherently collaborative, built on the continuous exchange of knowledge within the scientific community. Reading and writing articles, as well as citing peers’ work, are central to this process, providing context, inspiration, and differentiation in approaches and results. Positive citations enhance a researcher’s visibility and impact.
However, what happens when the citation system is manipulated? Our team of information scientists, a computer scientist, and a mathematician recently uncovered a method to artificially inflate citation counts through metadata manipulations, known as "sneaked references," in a study published in the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology.
Hidden Manipulation
Awareness of scientific publications and their potential flaws is increasing. Last year alone, over 10,000 scientific articles were retracted. Citation gaming, which damages the credibility of the scientific community, is a well-documented issue. Citations typically follow a standardized referencing system stored as metadata in a digital object identifier (DOI). However, we discovered that some unscrupulous actors added extra references, invisible in the article text but present in the metadata, resulting in artificially inflated citation counts.
Chance Discovery
The investigation began when Guillaume Cabanac, a professor at the University of Toulouse, noticed an inconsistency: a Hindawi journal article with awkward phrases had far more citations than downloads. This anomaly was shared on PubPeer, catching the attention of our team. Using a scientific search engine, we found discrepancies between Google Scholar, which relies on the article’s main text, and Crossref and Dimensions, which use metadata provided by publishers.
A New Type of Fraud
To understand the extent of the manipulation, we examined three scientific journals published by the Technoscience Academy. Our investigation revealed that at least 9% of recorded references in these journals were “sneaked references,” present only in the metadata. This distortion unfairly benefited certain researchers and journals, with some researchers gaining over 3,000 additional illegitimate citations.
Implications and Potential Solutions
This discovery is crucial as citation counts influence research funding, academic promotions, and institutional rankings. Manipulating citations can lead to unjust decisions and questions about the integrity of scientific impact measurement systems. To combat this practice, we suggest:
- Rigorous verification of metadata by publishers and agencies like Crossref.
- Independent audits to ensure data reliability.
- Increased transparency in managing references and citations.
Our study is the first to report metadata manipulation and highlights the flaws in overreliance on metrics to evaluate researchers. This practice promotes questionable research behaviors and hinders the transparency needed for robust research. Although the problematic citation metadata has been addressed, the corrections may have come too late.
More: https://theconversation.com/when-scientific-citations-go-rogue-uncovering-sneaked-references-233858
