Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

Citation metrics have become pivotal in evaluating academic research and influencing funding, promotions, and institutional prestige. However, the increasing emphasis on these metrics has given rise to unethical practices, notably citation cartels, which artificially inflate citation counts through collusive agreements among researchers or journals. This study investigates the prevalence and impact of citation cartels by analysing citation patterns in recent papers. Using a systematic approach, we examined citation data across five papers to identify patterns of collusion and the extent of citation inflation. The results reveal that Author 1 was cited in every reference across four out of five papers, either as a sole author or co-author, with a direct or indirect responsibility for 100% of the citations. Similarly, Authors 2 and 3 demonstrated substantial influence, with median citation shares of 36% and 35%, respectively. These findings highlight the significant role of key authors in shaping citation distributions and raise concerns about the integrity of citation metrics. The study concludes with recommendations for addressing citation cartels, including implementing detection systems, enhanced peer review processes, and a more balanced approach to evaluating research impact.

Keywords

Citation Cartels Citation Metrics Research Evaluation Scholarly Influence Unethical Practices Publication Patterns Research Integrity

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Willie, M. M. (2024). Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 4(2), 862–870. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v4i2.581
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P. (2019). Citations, citation indicators, and research quality: An overview of basic concepts and theories. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019829575
  2. Borgman, C. L. (2007). Scholarship in the Digital Age: Information, Infrastructure, and the Internet. MIT Press.
  3. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: Unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
  4. Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., et al. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 100. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
  5. Dougherty, M. R., & Horne, Z. (2022). Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences. Royal Society Open Science, 9(8). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220334
  6. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  7. Finardi, U. (2014). On the time evolution of received citations, in different scientific fields: An empirical study. Journal of Informetrics, 8(1), 13-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.10.003
  8. Fister, I. Jr., Fister, I., & Perc, M. (2016). Toward the discovery of citation cartels in citation networks. Frontiers in Physics, 4, 49. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049
  9. Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE, 12(12), e0187394.
  10. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication—A vanity fair? Science, 286(5437), 53-55.
  11. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90-93.
  12. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102(46), 16569-16572.
  13. Horta, H., & Santos, J. M. (2016). The impact of publishing during PhD studies on career research publication, visibility, and collaborations. Research in Higher Education, 57(1), 28-50.
  14. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2018). Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLoS Biology, 16(3), e2005468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005468
  15. Joshi, P. B., & Pandey, M. (2024). Deception through manipulated citations and references as a growing problem in scientific publishing. In P. B. Joshi, P. P. Churi, & M. Pandey (Eds.), Scientific publishing ecosystem. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-4060-4_17
  16. Kojaku, S., Livan, G., & Masuda, N. (2021). Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks. Scientific Reports, 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3
  17. Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2019). The Journal Impact Factor: A brief history, critique, and discussion of adverse effects. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators (pp. 3-24). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02511-3_1
  18. Malan, D. F. (2022). Journal impact factors: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 122(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/1741/2022
  19. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63.
  20. Mutti, A. (2023). Pride and concern for bibliometric achievements: Deserved results or result of cites inflation? La Medicina del Lavoro, 114(4). https://doi.org/10.23749/mdl.v114i4.14990
  21. Oravec, J. A. (2023). Artificial intelligence implications for academic cheating: Expanding the dimensions of responsible human-AI collaboration with ChatGPT and Bard. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 213-237.
  22. Perez, O., Bar-Ilan, J., Cohen, R., & Schreiber, N. (2019). The network of law reviews: Citation cartels, scientific communities, and journal rankings. Modern Law Review, 82(2), 240-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12405
  23. Priya, A. (2020). Case study methodology of qualitative research: Key attributes and navigating the conundrums in its application. Sociological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038022920970318
  24. Resnik, D. B., & Shamoo, A. E. (2011). The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity. Accountability in Research, 18(2), 71-75.
  25. Rosenkrantz, A. B., Parikh, U., & Duszak, R. Jr. (2018). Citation impact of collaboration in radiology research. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 15(2), 258-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.09.030
  26. Saleem, S., Dhuey, E., White, L., Waese, J., & Perlman, M. (2023). Analyzing referencing patterns in grey literature produced by influential global management consulting firms and international organisations. PLOS ONE, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279723
  27. Scholtz, S. (2021). Sacrifice is a step beyond convenience: A review of convenience sampling in psychological research in Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 47, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v47i0.1837
  28. Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., & Berners-Lee, T. (2006). The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.74
  29. Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2018). Measuring research: What everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press.
  30. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2021). Citations and gamed metrics: Academic integrity lost. Academic Questions, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.51845/34s.1.18
  31. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022). A synthesis of the formats for correcting erroneous and fraudulent academic literature, and associated challenges. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 53, 583–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4
  32. Van Noorden, R. (2010). Metrics: A profusion of measures. Nature, 465(7300), 864-866. https://doi.org/10.1038/465864a
  33. Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6068), 542-543. https://doi.org/10.2307/41487226
  34. Worrall, J. L., & Cohn, E. G. (2023). Citation data and analysis: Limitations and shortcomings. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986223117097

Similar Articles

<< < 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.