The Dark Sides of Modern Science: Credit Attribution, Citation and Impact

The Dark Sides of Modern Science: Credit Attribution, Citation and Impact Taha Sochi (Contact: t.soc[email protected]) London, United Kingdom Abstract: This is the sixth article in our series “The Dark Sides of Modern Science” and is about the credit attribution, citation and impact in the scientific circles and literature (where science means knowledge in general). The remarks that we stated in the Introduction of the first article of this series (i.e. “Knowledge Production and Authoring”) generally apply to this article and hence we do not need to repeat. Keywords: Ethics of science, ethics of knowledge, morality in science, academic misconduct, corruption in science, corruption related to science. 1 Contents Abstract 1 Table of Contents 2 1 Citation Metrics 3 2 Citation Misconduct 8 3 Citation Biases and Disparities 13 4 Questionable Types and Practices of Citation 17 5 Citation Value 21 6 Citation and Artificial Intelligence 24 7 Citation and Questionable Publishing 25 8 Citation and Retraction 27 9 Citation and Indexing Engines and Databases 30 10 Awards and Honors 34 11 Idolization, Fabrication and Inflation 36 12 Celebrity Culture 39 13 ORCID 40 14 Grade Inflation 40 15 Evaluating and Quantifying Credit 42 16 Fake Qualifications 43 17 Miscellaneous 43 2 1 Citation Metrics 1. J.B. Thomas. Scholarly Productivity in Psychology: a criticism of citation count research, 1980. DOI: 10.1080/0141192800060109 2. S. Hansson. Impact factor as a misleading tool in evaluation of medical journals, 1995. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92749-2 3. P.O. Seglen. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research, 1997. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497 4. N.M. Meenen. The impact factor–a reliable scientometric parameter?, 1997. DOI: 10.1007/BF02630217 5. F. Hecht; B.K. Hecht; A.A. Sandberg. The Journal "Impact Factor": A Misnamed, Misleading, Misused Measure, 1998. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-4608(97)00459-7 6. S. Bloch; G. Walter. The Impact Factor: Time for Change, 2001. DOI: 10.1080/0004867010060502 7. D. Colquhoun. Challenging the tyranny of impact factors, 2003. DOI: 10.1038/423479a 8. R. Eston. The impact factor: a misleading and flawed measure of research quality, 2005. DOI: 10.1080/02640410400014208 9. J.E. Hirsch. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output, 2005. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102 10. Editorial. The Impact Factor Game, 2006. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030291 11. C.L.S. Coryn. The Use and Abuse of Citations as Indicators of Research Quality, 2006. DOI: 10.56645/jmde.v3i4.82 12. D.L. Parnas. Stop the numbers game, 2007. DOI: 10.1145/1297797.1297815 13. P. Jacso. The pros and cons of computing the h-index using Google Scholar, 2008. DOI: 10.1108/14684520810889718 14. R. Smith. Beware the tyranny of impact factors, 2008. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B2.20258 15. M. Szklo. Impact Factor: Good Reasons for Concern, 2008. DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816b6a7a 16. M.E. Falagas; V.G. Alexiou. The top-ten in journal impact factor manipulation, 2008. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5 17. D.A. Pendlebury. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators, 2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-009-0008-y 18. C. Labbé. Ike Antkare one of the great stars in the scientific firmament, 2010. HAL Id: hal-00713564, version 1 3 19. J. Beel; B. Gipp. Academic Search Engine Spam and Google Scholar’s Resilience Against it, 2010. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0013.305 20. A.F. Mavrogenis; P. Ruggieri; P.J. Papagelopoulos. Editorial: Self-citation in Publishing, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8 21. G.E. Hunt; M. Cleary; G. Walter. Psychiatry and the Hirsch h-index: The Relationship Between Journal Impact Factors and Accrued Citations, 2010. DOI: 10.3109/10673229.2010.493742 22. E.D. Lopez-Cozar; N. Robinson-Garcia; D. Torres-Salinas. Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting, 2012. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1212.0638 23. R. Mutz; H.-D. Daniel. Skewed citation distributions and bias factors: Solutions to two core problems with the journal impact factor, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.006 24. M. Jalalian; H. Mahboobi. New corruption detected: Bogus impact factors compiled by fake organizations, 2013. DOI: 10.14661/2013.685-686 25. C. Fleck. The Impact Factor Fetishism, 2013. DOI: 10.1017/S0003975613000167 26. C.R. Carpenter; D.C. Cone; C.C. Sarli. Using Publication Metrics to Highlight Academic Productivity and Research Impact, 2014. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12482 27. W. Blockmans; L. Engwall; D. Weaire. Bibliometrics: Use and Abuse in the Review of Research Performance. 2014. ISBN: 9781855781955 28. S.-C. Fu; K.-M. Chan. Ranking of orthopaedic journals: A challenge to the citationbased metrics, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2014.03.005 29. F.R.S. Gutierrez; J. Beall; D.A. Forero. Spurious alternative impact factors: The scale of the problem from an academic perspective, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/bies.201500011 30. M. Jalalian. The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them, 2015. DOI: 10.14661/2015.1069-1072 31. H.I. Browman. The use and misuse of bibliometric indices in evaluating scholarly performance, 2015. DOI: 10.7557/5.3670 32. E. Callaway. Beat it, impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nature.2016.20224 33. J. Bohannon. Hate journal impact factors? New study gives you one more reason, 2016. DOI: 10.1126/science.aag0643 34. M. Dadkhah; G. Borchardt; M. Lagzian; G. Bianciardi. Academic Journals Plagued by Bogus Impact Factors, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4 35. J. Ravenscroft; M. Liakata; A. Clare; D. Duma. Measuring scientific impact beyond academia: An assessment of existing impact metrics and proposed improvements, 2017. 4 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0173152 36. J.A.T. da Silva; J. Dobranszki. Multiple versions of the h-index: cautionary use for formal academic purposes, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2680-3 37. R. Costas; T. Franssen. Reflections around ‘the cautionary use’ of the h-index: response to Teixeira da Silva and Dobránszki, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2683-0 38. F.M. Paulus; N. Cruz; S. Krach. The Impact Factor Fallacy, 2018. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01487 39. E.C. McKiernan; L.A. Schimanski; C.M. Nieves; et al. Meta-Research: Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations, 2019. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.47338 40. M. Fire; C. Guestrin. Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giz053 41. D. Juyal; V. Thawani; A. Sayana; S. Pal. Impact factor: Mutation, manipulation, and distortion, 2019. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_515_19 42. H. Else. Impact factors are still widely used in academic evaluations, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01151-4 43. C.A. Chapman; J.C. Bicca-Marques; S. Calvignac-Spencer; et al. Games academics play and their consequences: how authorship, h-index and journal impact factors are shaping the future of academia, 2019. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2047 44. J.R. Dettori; D.C. Norvell; J.R. Chapman. Measuring Academic Success: The Art and Science of Publication Metrics, 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219831003 45. D.G. Katritsis. Journal Impact Factor: Widely Used, Misused and Abused, 2019. PMID: 31463051 46. L. Bennet; D.A. Eisner; A.J. Gunn. Misleading with citation statistics?, 2019. DOI: 10.1113/JP277847 47. A.M. Petersen; R.K. Pan; F. Pammolli; S. Fortunato. Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.009 48. M. Biagioli; A. Lippman (Editors). Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. 2020. ISBN: 9780262356565 49. J. Qian; Z. Yuan; J. Li; H. Zhu. Science Citation Index (SCI) and scientific evaluation system in China, 2020. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00604-w 50. L. Lei; Y. Sun. Should highly cited items be excluded in impact factor calculation? The effect of review articles on journal impact factor, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03338-y 51. F. Buttner; C.L. Ardern; P. Blazey; et al. Counting publications and citations is not 5 just irrelevant: it is an incentive that subverts the impact of clinical research, 2020. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103146 52. R.I. Aroeira; M.A.R.B. Castanho. Can citation metrics predict the true impact of scientific papers?, 2020. DOI: 10.1111/febs.15255 53. J.A.T. da Silva. Paper mills and on-demand publishing: Risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.003 54. V. Koltun; D. Hafner. The h-index is no longer an effective correlate of scientific reputation, 2021. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253397 55. A. Jain; K.S. Khor; D. Beard; et al. Do journals raise their impact factor or SCImago ranking by self-citing in editorials? A bibliometric analysis of trauma and orthopaedic journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1111/ans.16546 56. Z. Taskin; G. Dogan; E. Kulczycki; A.A. Zuccala. Self-Citation Patterns of Journals Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101221 57. E. Quaia; F. Vernuccio. The H Index Myth: A Form of Fanaticism or a Simple Misconception?, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/tomography8030102 58. M.R. Dougherty; Z. Horne. Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences, 2022. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220334 59. Y. Zhou. Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10292 60. C. Bricker-Anthony; R.W. Herzog. Distortion of journal impact factors in the era of paper mills, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2023.05.008 61. H. Mondal; K.K. Deepak; M. Gupta; R. Kumar. The h-Index: Understanding its predictors, significance, and criticism, 2023. DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1613_23 62. E. Shiah; A.J. Heiman; J.A. Ricci. Evaluation of the i10-Index in Plastic Surgery Research and its Correlation with Altmetric Attention Scores and Traditional Author Bibliometrics: An Evaluation of a Single Journal, 2023. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1760827 63. A. Mace. The Limits of Citation Counts, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.02695 64. D.W. Aksnes; F.N. Piro; L.W. Fossum. Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works, 2023. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00241 65. G. Kendall. More Transparency is Needed When Citing h-Indexes, Journal Impact Factors and CiteScores, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-024-09983-3 66. P. Mora; S. Pilia. A proposed framework to address metric inflation in research publications, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280 67. M.K. Akhtar. The H-index is an unreliable research metric for evaluating the publication 6 impact of experimental scientists, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2024.1385080 68. T. Sochi. Practices and Metrics of Citation in Scholarly Publishing, 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5297510 69. I.R. Dhamsania; A.E. Zhou; B. Sloan; J.M. Grant-Kels. Ethics of citation inflation, authorship inflation, and bribery in academic research, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2024.10.015 70. Misleading Metrics. 71. Misleading Metrics. 72. Understanding research metrics. 73. Does authorship mean anything when academic papers are simply citable tokens?. 74. Performance-driven culture is ruining scientific research. 75. The pros and cons of key metrics. 76. Metrics to avoid - the impact factor. 77. The corrupting effects of academic citation metrics. 78. Fraud by Numbers: Metrics and the New Academic Misconduct. 79. Editor manipulation of impact factor. 80. Skewed Citations Affecting Journal Impact Factor - Need for tailoring journal evaluation metrics across disciplines. 81. Are standard metrics of academic output skewed by the relative popularity of a field?. 82. The "impact" of the Journal Impact Factor in the review, tenure, and promotion process. 83. The Impact Factor Debate: Assessing Journal Prestige and Research Quality. 84. The allure of the journal impact factor holds firm, despite its flaws. 85. Measuring What Matters: On the Tyranny of Academic Metrics. 86. Journal impact factors wrongly used to evaluate research. 87. Sick of Impact Factors. 88. Why is it bad to judge a paper by citation count?. 89. The academic papers researchers regard as significant are not those that are highly cited. 90. Assessing individual research performance. 91. What’s wrong with the h-index, according to its inventor. 92. Why the h-index is a bogus measure of academic impact. 93. Reliability of researcher metric the h-index is in decline. 94. How Bibliometrics Incentivize Self-Citation. 95. Four reasons to stop caring so much about the h-index. 96. If I write a really bad, but controversial, paper, can I increase my h-index?. 97. What are the limitations of using citation counts to evaluate research impact?. 7 98. The Unfairness of Citations. 99. Citation indexes make research more unequal. 100. How Performance Evaluation Metrics Corrupt Researchers. 101. Dressing up Irresponsible Metrics as Responsible Metrics. 102. Be the educated user - Article metrics. 103. Citation metrics, do they work?. 104. Reading between the lines on citation value. 105. List of Predatory Indexers and Fake Impact Factors. 106. Manipulatable Google Scholar Citation Counts. 107. Limitations of citation analysis on the measurement of research impact: A summary. 108. Three Common Pitfalls To Avoid When Using Citation Metrics. 109. Predatory and Misleading Metrics. 110. Major indexing service sounds alarm on self-citations by nearly 50 journals. 111. Citation inflation. 112. How the Inflation of Journal Citations Impacts Academia. 113. Impact Factor inflation : Multidisciplinary Publishing Institute (MDPI). 114. "Researchers must play games that damage the quality of science". 2 Citation Misconduct 1. D. Teodorescu; T. Andrei. An examination of "citation circles" for social sciences journals in Eastern European countries, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1210-6 2. M. Jalalian. The story of fake impact factor companies and how we detected them, 2015. DOI: 10.14661/2015.1069-1072 3. M. Biagioli. Watch out for cheats in citation game, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/535201a 4. I. Fister Jr.; I. Fister; M. Perc. Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks, 2016. DOI: 10.3389/fphy.2016.00049 5. E.A. Fong; A.W. Wilhite. Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research, 2017. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187394 6. C.F. Hickman; E.A. Fong; A.W. Wilhite; Y. Lee. Academic misconduct and criminal liability: Manipulating academic journal impact factors, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scz019 7. A. Wilhite; E.A. Fong; S. Wilhite. The influence of editorial decisions and the academic network on self-citations and journal impact factors, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.003 8 8. R.V. Noorden; D.S. Chawla. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 9. M. Biagioli; A. Lippman (Editors). Gaming the Metrics: Misconduct and Manipulation in Academic Research. 2020. ISBN: 9780262356565 10. S. Moussa. A "Trojan horse" in the reference lists: Citations to a hijacked journal in SSCI-indexed marketing journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388 11. S. Kojaku; G. Livan; N. Masuda. Detecting anomalous citation groups in journal networks, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3 12. M. Gain; N. Soni; S.D. Bhavani. Detection of Potential Citation Clubs in Bibliographic Networks, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-5348-3_56 13. M. Mehregan. Scientific journals must be alert to potential manipulation in citations and referencing, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211068745 14. J.D. Wren; C. Georgescu. Detecting anomalous referencing patterns in PubMed papers suggestive of author-centric reference list manipulation, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04503-6 15. D.S. Chawla. Researchers who agree to manipulate citations are more likely to get their papers published, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-01532-w 16. S.J.A. Zaidi; M. Taqi. Citation Cartels in Medical and Dental Journals, 2023. DOI: 10.29271/jcpsp.2023.06.700 17. P. Lu. The Right, Wrong, and Unethical Ways in Reference Citations, 2023. DOI: 10.2514/1.G007372 18. M. Catanzaro. Saudi universities lose highly cited researchers after payment schemes raise ethics concerns, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.zhs1429 19. P. Mora; S. Pilia. A proposed framework to address metric inflation in research publications, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280 20. D.S. Chawla. The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-01672-7 21. M. Catanzaro. Citation cartels help some mathematicians - and their universities - climb the rankings, 2024. DOI: 10.1126/science.zcl2s6d 22. M.M. Willie. Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World, 2024. DOI: 10.52970/grdis.v4i2.581 23. D.E. Wright. Five problems plaguing publishing in the life sciences-and one common cause, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.15018 24. K. Langin. Vendor offering citations for purchase is latest bad actor in scholarly publishing, 2024. DOI: 10.1126/science.zk7dou0 9 the gender disadvantage, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104895 42. D.S. Chawla. Self-citations in around a dozen countries are unusually high, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-00090-z 43. D. Normile. A ‘home bias’ in citations boosts China’s global science ranking, 2024. DOI: 10.1126/science.adt5690 44. S. Qiu; C. Steinwender; P. Azoulay. Paper Tiger? Chinese Science and Home Bias in Citations, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2025.104123 45. Editorial. Citation diversity statements, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s44159-025-00497-z 46. R.A. Campbell; E. Helstrom; L. Chew; et al. Gender Disparities in Citations and Altmetric Attention Score in Oncology, 2025. DOI: 10.1200/OP-24-00767 47. I.F. de Fuentes. The gender citation gap, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.newton.2025.100099 48. X. Yang; P. Zhou. Unveiling citation bias in economics: Taste-based discrimination against Chinese-authored papers, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2025.102725 49. L. Bornmann; C. Leibel. Citation accuracy, citation noise, and citation bias: A foundation of citation analysis, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.12735 50. J. He. Who Gets Cited? Genderand Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02740 51. Home bias and China’s global standing in science. 52. Unintended Consequences: The Perils of Publication and Citation Bias. 53. China’s scientists often cite work from their own nation. Is that skewing global research rankings?. 54. Some of The World’s Most-Cited Scientists Have a Secret That’s Just Been Exposed. 55. Stop fake citations. 56. Citation Bias - Confirmation Bias for Scientists. 57. Chemistry researchers cite their own work the most. 58. One-sided reference bias. 59. What is in a Name? Additional Sources of Bias in Citation Counts. 60. Weekend reads: Self-citation farms; an editor refuses to retract; publishing enters politics. 61. Do We Need A Self-Citation Index?. 62. Use and Abuse of Citations. 63. Reference Bias: Identifying and Reducing in Surveys and Research. 64. Citation indexes make research more unequal. 65. Inequities of Race, Place, and Gender Among the Communication Citation Elite, 200016 2019. 66. Why are women cited less than men?. 67. Men Forget About Female Researchers, Says Study On Gender Citation Gap. 68. The Racial Politics of Citation. 69. Citational Racism: How Leading Medical Journals Reproduce Segregation in American Medical Knowledge. 70. Citations in science are biased towards a handful of nations - and the gap is growing. 71. The politics of citation: Is the peer review process biased against Indigenous academics?. 72. Wealthy nations rake in the citations while poorer countries go under-acknowledged. 73. What to do about gender and geo/linguistic bias in academic citations?. 74. The politics of citation. 75. Waking up to the politics of citation. 76. Academic publishing trends: self-citations and favoritism. 77. Citation: Research Management Tools. 78. The Politics of Citation: An Analysis of Doctoral Theses across Disciplines. 79. Towards Citational Justice. 80. Aspirational metrics - A guide for working towards citational justice. 81. Journal self-citations are increasingly biased toward impact factor years. 82. The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. 83. Losing the numbers game: abundant self-citations put journals at risk for a life without an impact factor. 84. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. 4 Questionable Types and Practices of Citation 1. A.F. Mavrogenis; P. Ruggieri; P.J. Papagelopoulos. Editorial: Self-citation in Publishing, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8 2. A.W. Wilhite; E.A. Fong. Coercive Citation in Academic Publishing, 2012. DOI: 10.1126/science.1212540 3. B.D. Thombs; I. Razykov. A solution to inappropriate self-citation via peer review, 2012. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.120597 4. M.R. Olsson. Author-Constructs & Trojan horse-ing: Academic citation as a strategic discursive practice, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/meet.2011.14504801087 5. C.-L. Chang; M. McAleer; L. Oxley. Coercive journal self citations, impact factor, 17 Journal Influence and Article Influence, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.matcom.2013.04.006 6. B.D. Thombs; A.W. Levis; I. Razykov; et al. Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015 7. M. Maes. A review on citation amnesia in depression and inflammation research, 2015. PMID: 25789583 8. C. Chorus; L. Waltman. A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal SelfCitations, 2016. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161021 9. D. Shaw. The Trojan Citation and the "Accidental" Plagiarist, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-015-9696-7 10. J.A.T. da Silva. The ethics of peer and editorial requests for self-citation of their work and journal, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.11.008 11. M. Dadkhah; M. Lagzian; G. Borchardt. Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6 12. J.D. Wren; A. Valencia; J. Kelso. Reviewer-coerced citation: case report, update on journal policy and suggestions for future prevention, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz071 13. M. van de Weert; L. Stella. The dangers of citing papers you did not read or understand, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.03.024 14. J. Baas; C. Fennell. When Peer Reviewers Go Rogue - Estimated Prevalence of Citation Manipulation by Reviewers Based on the Citation Patterns of 69,000 Reviewers, 2019. Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3339568 15. D.S. Chawla. Elsevier investigates hundreds of peer reviewers for manipulating citations, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9 16. L. Zhou; U. Amadi; D. Zhang. Is Self-Citation Biased? An Investigation via the Lens of Citation Polarity, Density, and Location, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-018-9889-9 17. M. Szomszor; D.A. Pendlebury; J. Adams. How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5 18. R.V. Noorden. Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00335-7 19. D. Lyu; X. Ruan; J. Xie; Y. Cheng. The classification of citing motivations: a metasynthesis, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03908-z 20. F. Sanfilippo; S. Tigano; A. Morgana; et al. Self-citation policies and journal self-citation rate among Critical Care Medicine journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-021-00530-2 21. Z. Taskin; G. Dogan; E. Kulczycki; A.A. Zuccala. Self-Citation Patterns of Journals 18 Indexed in the Journal Citation Reports, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101221 22. S. Moussa. A "Trojan horse" in the reference lists: Citations to a hijacked journal in SSCI-indexed marketing journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388 23. Y. Zhou. Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10292 24. A. Abalkina; G. Cabanac; C. Labbe; A. Magazinov. Improper legitimization of hijacked journals through citations, 2022. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.04703 25. S.P.J.M. Horbach; F.J.W.O. Maatman; W. Halffman; W.M. Hepkema. Automated citation recommendation tools encourage questionable citations, 2022. DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvac016 26. P. Lu. The Right, Wrong, and Unethical Ways in Reference Citations, 2023. DOI: 10.2514/1.G007372 27. N. Shomoossi; M. Rad. Self-citation: to do or not to do?, 2023. DOI: 10.18502/jmehm.v16i1.12884 28. D.Z. Basil; S. Burton; A. Soboleva; P. Nesbit. Coercive Citation: Understanding the Problem and Working Toward a Solution, 2023. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2022.0081 29. E.A. Fong; R. Patnayakuni; A.W. Wilhite. Accommodating coercion: Authors, editors, and citations, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2023.104754 30. M. Mehregan; M. Moghiman. The Unnoticed Issue of Coercive Citation Behavior for Authors, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-024-09994-0 31. J.P. Wahle; T. Ruas; M. Abdalla; et al. Citation Amnesia: On The Recency Bias of NLP and Other Academic Fields, 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.12046 32. S. Burton; D.Z. Basil; A. Soboleva; P. Nesbit. Cite me! Perspectives on coercive citation in reviewing, 2024. DOI: 10.1108/JSM-08-2024-0387 33. S. Macdonald. Authorship in Academic Publishing and the Thirst for Citation, 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5134231 34. T. Sochi. Practices and Metrics of Citation in Scholarly Publishing, 2025. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5297510 35. Self-citation: why (or why not), how, and when?. 36. Addressing Reviewer Misconduct in Scholarly Publishing: MDPI’s Proactive Steps. 37. Editor manipulation of impact factor. 38. What is self-citation and what does it have to do with academic integrity?. 39. Do We Need A Self-Citation Index?. 40. 14 Kinds of Bogus Citations. 19 41. Ethically Questionable Citation Practices. 42. The Problem with Too Much Self-Citation. 43. The Ethics of Self-Citation. 44. I spotted a paper with an absurd amount of self citations. Is this normal?. 45. The dangers of excessive self-citation. 46. on the perils of self-citation. 47. The Perils of Self-Citation: How It Can Ruin Your Academic Career. 48. Self-Citation: The Risks and Benefits. 49. Should you cite yourself or not? avoid citing your published papers in this publisher whenever possible in the future. 50. Should self-citations be included or excluded from measures of academic performance?. 51. Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports - Science Edition (2002). 52. 2 open-access publishers accused of excessive self-citation. 53. Major indexing service sounds alarm on self-citations by nearly 50 journals. 54. Coercive citation. 55. Experiences with ‘coercive citation’. 56. Ways to Avoid Coercive Citations in Your Research Writing. 57. Let’s talk about coercive citation - and stand up to it. 58. Self-citations: are they good or bad?. 59. Citation amnesia: Not good for our health. 60. Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP. 61. Citation amnesia: The results. 62. Citation amnesia: Newton and Alhacen’s forgotten connection. 63. From Citation Amnesia to Bibliographic Plagiarism. 64. The Perils of Citation. 65. Cite yourself excessively, apologize, then republish the papers with fewer self-citations. Journal says: Fine. 66. What does citation mean? Values and practices in scholarly work. 67. Survey on inadequate and omitted citations in manuscripts: a precursory study in identification of tasks for a literature review and manuscript writing assistive system. 68. Citing Sources that Were Not Read or Thoroughly Understood. 69. The Impact of Incorrect Citations in Academic Work. 70. Coercive citations: the price of being published. 71. How Bibliometrics Incentivize Self-Citation. 72. A. Murat Eren’s Post. 20 73. Reviewer asking for citing 5 of his irrelevant articles. 74. A ‘joke’: Paper with ‘completely irrelevant’ citations retracted. 75. Timo Mandler’s Post. 76. Preventing Citation Manipulation During Peer Reviews. 77. Citing works in a list without having read them. 78. the citation dump - and three more citation tactics to avoid. 79. Editor and reviewers requiring authors to cite their own work. 80. My reviewer forced me to cite his papers. 81. Cite or be damned: Some Thoughts on Reviewer-Coerced Citation. 82. The case of the reviewer who said cite me or I won’t recommend acceptance of your work. 83. When Journal Editors Coerce Authors to Self-Cite. 5 Citation Value Also see the previous sections (refer to §1,§2,§3and §4). 1. M.A. Ferber. Citations: Are They an Objective Measure of Scholarly Merit?, 1986. DOI: 10.1086/494230 2. Editorial. Citation data: the wrong impact?, 1998. DOI: 10.1038/3639 3. P. Nieminen; J. Carpenter; G. Rucker; M. Schumacher. The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency, 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-42 4. P.O. Seglen. Citations and journal impact factors: questionable indicators of research quality, 2007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997.tb00175.x 5. C.T. Bergstrom; J.D. West; M.A. Wiseman. The EigenfactorTM Metrics, 2008. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-08.2008 6. P.A. Todd; R.J. Ladle. Citations: poor practices by authors reduce their value, 2008. DOI: 10.1038/451244b 7. B.R. Martin. Whither research integrity? Plagiarism, self-plagiarism and coercive citation in an age of research assessment, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.03.011 8. Editorial. The maze of impact metrics, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/502271a 9. C.W. Belter. Bibliometric indicators: opportunities and limits, 2015. DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.014 10. J. Ruscio. Taking Advantage of Citation Measures of Scholarly Impact: Hip Hip h Index!, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616664436 21 11. L. Leydesdorff; L. Bornmann; J.A. Comins; S. Milojevic. Citations: Indicators of Quality? The Impact Fallacy, 2016. DOI: 10.3389/frma.2016.00001 12. B. Duyx; M.J.E. Urlings; G.M.H. Swaen. Scientific citations favor positive results: a systematic review and meta-analysis, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002 13. D. Herrmannova; R.M. Patton; P. Knoth; C.G. Stahl. Citations and Readership are Poor Indicators of Research Excellence: Introducing TrueImpactDataset, a New Dataset for Validating Research Evaluation Metrics, 2017. DOI: 10.1145/3057148.3057154 14. I.A. Moosa. The citation approach to journal ranking, 2018. DOI: 10.4337/9781786434937.00011 15. T. Tyler. Citation Metrics and Impact Factors Fail as Measures of Scientific Quality, in Particular in Taxonomy, and are Biased by Biological Discipline and by Geographic and Taxonomic Factors, 2018. DOI: 10.5735/085.055.0123 16. D.W. Aksnes; L. Langfeldt; P. Wouters. Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories, 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2158244019829575 17. M. Fire; C. Guestrin. Over-optimization of academic publishing metrics: observing Goodhart’s Law in action, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giz053 18. A.M. Petersen; R.K. Pan; F. Pammolli; S. Fortunato. Methods to account for citation inflation in research evaluation, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.009 19. R.I. Aroeira; M.A.R.B. Castanho. Can citation metrics predict the true impact of scientific papers?, 2020. DOI: 10.1111/febs.15255 20. F. Buttner; C.L. Ardern; P. Blazey; et al. Counting publications and citations is not just irrelevant: it is an incentive that subverts the impact of clinical research, 2020. DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2020-103146 21. M. Serra-Garcia; U. Gneezy. Nonreplicable publications are cited more than replicable ones, 2021. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd1705 22. D. Lyu; X. Ruan; J. Xie; Y. Cheng. The classification of citing motivations: a metasynthesis, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03908-z 23. F. Shu. Limitations of citation analysis on the measurement of research impact: A summary, 2021. DOI: 10.59494/dsi.2021.3.4 24. M.R. Dougherty; Z. Horne. Citation counts and journal impact factors do not capture some indicators of research quality in the behavioural and brain sciences, 2022. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.220334 25. M. Teplitskiy; E. Duede; M. Menietti; K.R. Lakhani. How status of research papers affects the way they are read and cited, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2022.104484 22 26. N. Pontika; T. Klebel; A. Correia; et al. Indicators of research quality, quantity, openness, and responsibility in institutional review, promotion, and tenure policies across seven countries, 2022. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00224 27. D.W. Aksnes; F.N. Piro; L.W. Fossum. Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works, 2023. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00241 28. A. Mace. The Limits of Citation Counts, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.1711.02695 29. M. Thelwall; K. Kousha; E. Stuart; et al. In which fields are citations indicators of research quality?, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24767 30. A. Mutti. Pride and Concern for Bibliometric Achievements: Deserved Results or Result of Cites Inflation?, 2023. DOI: 10.23749/mdl.v114i4.14990 31. I. Evdaimon; J.P.A. Ioannidis; G. Nikolentzos; et al. Metrics to Detect Small-Scale and Large-Scale Citation Orchestration, 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.19219 32. A. Matorevhu. Bibliometrics: Application Opportunities and Limitations, 2024. DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1005292 33. A.W.K. Yeung. Is Citation Count a Legitimate Indicator of Scientific Impact? A Case Study of Upper (1974) "The Unsuccessful Self-Treatment of a Case of Writer’s Block" and Its Derivatives, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/publications12040035 34. L.V. Hove. Fake references and the value of citation databases, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103123 35. Performance-driven culture is ruining scientific research. 36. Beyond Predatory Publishing: Additional Questionable Offers in Scholarly Publishing. 37. Citation Statistics and Citation Rings. 38. How thousands of invisible citations sneak into papers and make for fake metrics. 39. What does citation mean? Values and practices in scholarly work. 40. What are the limitations of using citation counts to evaluate research impact?. 41. Limitations of citation analysis on the measurement of research impact: A summary. 42. Limitations of bibliometrics. 43. Pros and cons of bibliometrics. 44. Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation. 45. ‘Highly Cited,’ Highly Controversial. 46. Reading between the lines on citation value. 47. Is citation a true indicator of someone’s research capability?. 48. Do Academic Citations Measure the Impact of New Ideas?. 49. Citation metrics, do they work?. 23 50. Why is it bad to judge a paper by citation count?. 51. Why Metrics Cannot Measure Research Quality: A Response to the HEFCE Consultation. 52. The role of trust and authority in the citation behaviour of researchers. 53. Research paper citation may skew its influence. 54. Do Academic Citations Measure the Impact of New Ideas?. 55. When Do Citations Reflect "Impact?". 56. How Junk Citations Have Discredited the Academy. 57. Over 400 Scientific Papers Have Cited a ‘Phantom’ Reference That Never Existed. 58. Cat Becomes Well-Cited Scholar With New Scam Method. 6 Citation and Artificial Intelligence 1. T. Day. A Preliminary Investigation of Fake Peer-Reviewed Citations and References Generated by ChatGPT, 2023. DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2023.2190373 2. A. De Cassai; B. Dost. Concerns regarding the uncritical use of ChatGPT: a critical analysis of AI-generated references in the context of regional anesthesia, 2023. DOI: 10.1136/rapm-2023-104771 3. W.H. Walters; E.I. Wilder. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations generated by ChatGPT, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5 4. M. Bhattacharyya; V.M. Miller; D. Bhattacharyya; L.E. Miller. High Rates of Fabricated and Inaccurate References in ChatGPT-Generated Medical Content, 2023. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.39238 5. A. Chen; D.O. Chen. Accuracy of Chatbots in Citing Journal Articles, 2023. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.27647 6. H.S. Al-Sinani; C.J. Mitchell. From Content Creation to Citation Inflation: A GenAI Case Study, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.23414 7. A. Sharifi. Tackle fake citations generated by AI, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-02482-1 8. J. He. Who Gets Cited? Genderand Majority-Bias in LLM-Driven Reference Selection, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.02740 9. E. Gibney. Can researchers stop AI making up citations?, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-02853-8 10. N.T. Camp; J.A. Bengtson; J.C. Sandstrom. The citation catastrophe: Propagation of 24 AI-generated counterfeit citations in scholarship, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103065 11. ChatGPT and Fake Citations. 12. The Fabrication Problem: How AI Models Generate Fake Citations, URLs, and References. 13. Stop fake citations. 14. Free Citation Checker. 15. Springer Nature retracts book with fake citations. Help us find more cases like this. 16. ChatGPT and Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI): Incorrect bibliographic references. 17. Fake citations in academic papers: a growing concern. 18. AI Citation Fakes: Eroding Trust in Research and Legal Integrity. 19. Generative Artificial Intelligence : Fake Citations. 20. ChatGPT Fake Citations. 21. AI Search Has A Citation Problem. 22. Be Careful... ChatGPT Appears to be Making up Academic References. 23. Why does ChatGPT generate fake references?. 24. Why ChatGPT Creates Non-Existing Scientific Citations (And How I Learned This the Hard Way). 25. Don’t get ghosted: Beware of ChatGPT generated citations. 26. Don’t be surprised by AI chatbots creating fake citations. 27. Watch Out for Fake Citations from ChatGPT. 28. Recent study: AI search engines messing up citations. 7 Citation and Questionable Publishing 1. T.F. Frandsen. Are predatory journals undermining the credibility of science? A bibliometric analysis of citers, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x 2. D.S. Chawla. Predatory-journal papers have little scientific impact, 2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00031-6 3. S. Moussa. A "Trojan horse" in the reference lists: Citations to a hijacked journal in SSCI-indexed marketing journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388 4. S. Moussa. Citation contagion: a citation analysis of selected predatory marketing journals, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03729-6 25 DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51987 19. A. Cortegiani; M. Ippolito; G. Ingoglia; et al. Citations and metrics of journals discontinued from Scopus for publication concerns: the GhoS(t)copus Project, 2020. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.23847.2 20. N.M. Duc; D.V. Hiep; P.M. Thong; et al. Predatory Open Access Journals are Indexed in Reputable Databases: a Revisiting Issue or an Unsolved Problem, 2020. DOI: 10.5455/medarh.2020.74.318-322 21. C. Rovira; L. Codina; C. Lopezosa. Language Bias in the Google Scholar Ranking Algorithm, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/fi13020031 22. S.-G. Kim. Critics for major indexing service, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-021-00321-7 23. F.A. Loan; N. Nasreen; B. Bashir. Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index?, 2021. DOI: 10.1108/LHT-04-2021-0141 24. W. Liu. Caveats for the use of Web of Science Core Collection in old literature retrieval and historical bibliometric analysis, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121023 25. D.S. Chawla. Hundreds of ‘predatory’ journals indexed on leading scholarly database, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0 26. Z. Li; A.W. Rainer. Academic search engines: constraints, bugs, and recommendations, 2022. DOI: 10.1145/3548659.3561310 27. R. Sauvayre. Types of Errors Hiding in Google Scholar Data, 2022. DOI: 10.2196/28354 28. L. Delgado-Quiros; I.F. Aguillo; A. Martin-Martin; et al. Why are these publications missing? Uncovering the reasons behind the exclusion of documents in free-access scholarly databases, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24839 29. A. Abalkina. Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24855 30. T. Asubiaro; S. Onaolapo; D. Mills. Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04948-x 31. H. Ibrahim; F. Liu; Y. Zaki; T. Rahwan. Google Scholar is manipulatable, 2024. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.04607 32. C. Kacperski; M. Bielig; M. Makhortykh; et al. Examining bias perpetuation in academic search engines: An algorithm audit of Google and Semantic Scholar, 2024. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v29i11.13730 33. H. Ibrahim; F. Liu; Y. Zaki; T. Rahwan. Citation manipulation through citation mills and pre-print servers, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7 34. Criticisms of the Citation System, and Google Scholar in Particular. 32 35. Manipulatable Google Scholar Citation Counts. 36. Citation indexing and indexes. 37. What are the advantages and disadvantages of citation databases?. 38. ‘Sort by relevance’? Algorithms may bias literature searches. 39. Engineering the world’s highest cited cat, Larry. 40. Google Scholar is not broken (yet), but there are alternatives. 41. How to Fix Google Scholar Indexing Issues for Your Research Paper. 42. Critiques of Google Scholar. 43. Web of Science: A Web of Nonsense. 44. Scopus is broken - just look at its literature category. 45. Challenges posed by hijacked journals in Scopus. 46. GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. 47. Google Scholar is (still) doing nothing about citation manipulation. 48. Gaming the H-Index: The Dark Side of Google Scholar and ResearchGate. 49. Elsevier Unethically Promotes its Journals via Scopus: The Case of Heliyon. 50. Exclusive: Web of Science company involved in dubious awards in Iraq. 51. The wolf in Scopus’ clothing: Another hijacked journal has indexed nearly 900 articles. 52. Scopus: a data manipulation tool. 53. Attention Scopus Users! Study Reveals 67 Hijacked Journals Prompting Concerns. 54. Incident 724: Purportedly AI-Generated Papers Are Alleged to Have Manipulated Scopus Rankings in Top Philosophy Journals. 55. Google Scholar Shows Bias Against Non-English Papers. 56. ‘Biased’ and ‘unethical’: Journal objects to Scopus delisting. 57. Some of Google scholars coverage might be problematic. 58. Scopus indexed a journal with a fake editorial board and a sham archive. 59. Google Scholar vs. Traditional Databases: Pros and Cons for Academic Research. 60. Pros and Cons of Google Scholar. 61. Does Scopus Intentionally Allow Journals to Scam Authors? Evidences Suggest. 62. The Social Science Citation Index: A Black Box-with an Ideological Bias?. 63. The Clarivate Controversy: How CiteScore Rank Provides a Response to Arbitrary Delisting. 33 10 Awards and Honors 1. H. Zuckerman. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. 1977. ISBN: 9780029357606 2. E. Crawford. Nobel : Always the Winners, Never the Losers, 1998. DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5392.1256 3. D. Dorling. Putting Men on A Pedestal: Nobel Prizes as Superhuman Myths?, 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00447.x 4. R.J. Roberts. Ten Simple Rules to Win a Nobel Prize, 2015. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004084 5. M. Barany. The Fields Medal should return to its roots, 2018. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-00513-8 6. P. Lunnemann; M.H. Jensen; L. Jauffred. Gender bias in Nobel prizes, 2019. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3 7. Y. Ma; D.F.M. Oliveira; T.K. Woodruff; B. Uzzi. Women who win prizes get less money and prestige, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00091-3 8. S.S. Kantha. Cancer research recognized (and ignored) by the Nobel prizes, 2020. DOI: 10.4103/ijc.IJC_251_20 9. L.I. Meho. The gender gap in highly prestigious international research awards, 20012020, 2021. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00148 10. H.-C.H. Chang; F. Fu. Elitism in mathematics and inequality, 2021. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00680-y 11. T.T. Le; D.S. Himmelstein; A.A. Hippen; et al. Analysis of scientific society honors reveals disparities, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2021.07.007 12. M.A. Lichtman. Controversies in Selecting Nobel Laureates: An Historical Commentary, 2022. DOI: 10.5041/RMMJ.10479 13. J.W. Jacobs; L.A. Bibb; E.S. Allen; et al. Women and non-white people among Lasker Award recipients from 1946 to 2022: cross sectional study, 2023. DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074968 14. M. Lagisz. Research prizes are opaque and rife with bias - it’s time to shake them up, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-04027-w 15. K. Neikirk; Z. Vue; N. Vue; et al. Disparities in Funding for Nobel Prize Awards in Medicine and Physiology Across Nationalities, Races, and Gender, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/jcp.31157 16. M. Lagisz; J. Rutkowska; U. Aich; et al. "Best Paper" awards lack transparency, inclu34 sivity, and support for Open Science, 2024. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002715 17. A.E. Hultgren; N.M.F. Patras; J. Hicks. Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award, 2024. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.92339 18. A. Hopkins-Doyle; J. Chalmers; D. Toribio-Florez; A. Cichocka. Gender disparities in social and personality psychology awards from 1968 to 2021, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00113-5 19. C.S. Maldonado-Vlaar. New Perspective of the Persistent Gender and Diversity Gap in Nobel Prizes, 2025. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2341-24.2024 20. Nobel Prize controversies. 21. 7 Nobel Prize Scandals. 22. The Nobel Prizes: What is the point?. 23. Nobel Laureates Who Were Not Always Noble. 24. The Nobel Illusion: Why the Nobel Prize in Economics Needs to be Abolished. 25. The Problem With the Nobel Prizes. 26. Why Nobel prizes fail 21st-century science. 27. Do the Nobel prizes do more harm than good?. 28. The problem with Nobel’s ‘rule of three’. 29. I love math and I hate the Fields Medal. 30. Fields Medal was never meant for ‘the greatest mathematical genius’. 31. The Errors in the Fields Medals, 1982 to S. T. Yau and 1990 to E. Witten. 32. Men won all the science Nobels this year. There’s an even bigger problem. 33. The Nobel Prize Gender Gap Persists for One Simple Reason. 34. The Nobel Prize Gender Gap. 35. SySTEMic Misogyny: Why Women Do Not Win Nobel Prizes at the Same Rate as Men. 36. Age, Gender, and the Highest Award in Mathematics. 37. Even in mathematics, who you know may matter more than your talent. 38. The Jewish Bias of the Nobel Prize. 39. What? Not All Jews Are Geniuses?. 40. A Quiet Bias Is Keeping Black Scientists from Winning Nobel Prizes. 41. The Fields Medal Fallacy: Why this Math Prize Should Return to its Roots as a Tool for Shaping the Discipline. 42. The Forgotten Dream of the Fields Medal. 35 43. Think Nobel Prizes Are Apolitical? Think Again. 44. The majority doesn’t care about Nobel Prizes because the winners represent elitism. 45. The problem with Nobel prizes and the myth of the lone genius. 46. Nobel Prizes have a diversity problem even worse than the scientific fields they honor. 47. The Folly of Big Science Awards. 48. The Absurdity of the Nobel Prizes in Science. 49. Another All-male Lineup for the Science Nobels: Is It Time to Stop Caring?. 50. Access to Opportunity in the Sciences: Evidence from the Nobel Laureates. 51. The science behind winning a Nobel prize? Being a man from a wealthy family. 52. The science behind winning a Nobel prize? Being a man from a wealthy family. 53. Does science need heroes?. 54. Nobel prize winners far more likely to come from wealthy families highlighting inequality in the sciences. 55. Ig Nobel prizes reward study on why luck, not talent, leads to success. 56. Minding the gender gap in science prizes. 57. When a series of entirely reasonable decisions leads to biased outcomes: thoughts on the Waterman Award. 58. Rethinking Awards Processes. 59. Let’s Abolish Academic Prizes. 60. The glut of prizes is undermining the true value of research and teaching. 61. Prizes Like The Nobel Are Unjust–And Bad For Science. 62. Why the Nobel Prize Doesn’t Deserve Our Love. 63. What the Nobel Prizes Are Not. 64. The Nobel Prize Is Bad And We Should Feel Bad. 65. The Nobel Prize Is Really Annoying. 11 Idolization, Fabrication and Inflation Also see some of the previous articles in this series related to things like plagiarism and fraud of scientists (especially the famous ones); e.g. “Plagiarism” section in the first article and “Fraud, Fabrication, Cheating and Dishonesty” section in the fourth article. 1. W. Broad; N. Wade. Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. 1983. ISBN: 9780712602433 2. J. Giles. Scientists behaving badly, 2004. DOI: 10.1038/news040301-9 36 3. B.C. Martinson; M.S. Anderson; R. de Vries. Scientists behaving badly, 2005. DOI: 10.1038/435737a 4. M. Brooks. Einstein’s dealings with physics fraudster, 2007. DOI: 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62922-4 5. J. van Dongen. Emil Rupp, Albert Einstein and the canal ray experiments on waveparticle duality: Scientific fraud and theoretical bias, 2007. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.0709.3099 6. B. Almassi. Trust in expert testimony: Eddington’s 1919 eclipse expedition and the British response to general relativity, 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2008.08.003 7. N. Kollerstrom. The Dark Side of Isaac Newton: Science’s Greatest Fraud? 2018. ISBN: 9781526740540 8. R.V. Noorden; D.S. Chawla. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 9. A.J. Abduh. Hyperprolific authors in the top 2% scientists of the world, 2022. DOI: 10.22541/au.167243694.40444786/v2 10. A.J. Abduh. A Critical Analysis of the World’s Top 2% Most Influential Scientists: Examining the Limitations and Biases of Highly Cited Researchers Lists, 2023. DOI: 10.22541/au.167435298.80209125/v1 11. M. Catanzaro. Saudi universities lose highly cited researchers after payment schemes raise ethics concerns, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.zhs1429 12. N. Sfetcu. Isaac Newton Vs. Robert Hooke on the Law of Universal Gravitation, 2023. DOI: 10.58679/MM39765 13. S.B. Xu; G. Hu. Worryingly high prevalence of retraction among top-cited researchers, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-03704-8 14. P. Mora; S. Pilia. A proposed framework to address metric inflation in research publications, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280 15. F. Graham. Daily briefing: Claims of fraud plague one of the most-cited neuroscience researchers, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-03216-5 16. B.A. Abdalla; A.M. Mustafa; F.H. Fattah; et al. Self-citation pattern among world’s top 2 % of the scientists, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42471 17. J. Briggs. The Scientist Who Wasn’t There: A true story of staggering deception. 2025. ISBN: 9781804189726 18. Does science need heroes?. 19. Some of The World’s Most-Cited Scientists Have a Secret That’s Just Been Exposed. 37 20. The "Top 2% most influential scientists of 2020" according to Stanford. 21. Citation amnesia: Newton and Alhacen’s forgotten connection. 22. Did Isaac Newton plagiarize his work from Ibn-Al Haytham?. 23. The Einstein myth: Why the cult of personality is bad for science. 24. How authentic is this list?. 25. Eddington’s excused for fraud in 1919, Einstein says its okay to commit fraud. 26. December 1934: Emil Rupp’s Research, Which Fooled Even Einstein, is Exposed as Fraud. 27. The Buzz Surrounding the World’s Top 2% Scientists. 28. The list of the world’s most-cited scientists excludes 1,000 researchers over fraudulent practices. 29. Scientists Behaving Badly. 30. Over 1,000 excluded from highly cited researcher list for ‘fraud’. 31. Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?. 32. Betrayers of the Truth. 33. Histories: Einstein’s convenient untruths. 34. How easy is it to fudge your scientific rank? Meet Larry, the world’s most cited cat. 35. Guest Post - The Perplexing Puzzle of the Top 2% Scientists List. 36. Growing numbers of ‘highly cited’ turn out to be fraudsters. 37. The giants of science. 38. Among world’s top researchers 10% publish at unrealistic levels, analysis finds. 39. I was scared and intimidated by the number of citations of top scientists when I used Google Scholar. 40. Stanford/Elsevier rank list: why all that glitters is not gold. 41. The More Widely Cited A Study Is, The More Likely It Is To Exaggerate, Says This Study. 42. Dozens of the world’s most cited scientists stop falsely claiming to work in Saudi Arabia. 43. Hinton’s Google Scholar profile keeps inflating citations for his top paper. 44. Report: The Top 2% Scientists List -A Hoax Disguised as Prestige. 45. Purr-fect Citations: How a Cat Became the World’s Most Cited Academic. 46. Saudi universities suffer from purge of list of highly cited researchers. 47. The new academic bandits in town. 48. The Einstein Cult: Why Physicists Are Fundamentalists. 49. Poincare, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret. 50. Leibniz-Newton calculus controversy. 38 51. Newton-Hooke priority controversy for the inverse square law. 52. Why Was Isaac Newton Was The Later Accused Of Plagiarism. 53. Why did Issac Newton take revenge on Robert Hooke?. 54. The Rivalry Between Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. 55. My father the fraud: Daughter reveals how key scientist in Primodos scandal built career on lies. 12 Celebrity Culture 1. L.M. Krauss. Scientists as celebrities: Bad for science or good for society?, 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0096340214563676 2. D. Fahy. The New Celebrity Scientists: Out of the Lab and into the Limelight. 2015. ISBN: 9781442233423 3. P.W. Walsh; D. Lehmann. Academic Celebrity, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s10767-019-09340-9 4. Scientific celebrity. 5. Are pop star scientists bad for science?. 6. Einstein and the cult of celebrity. 7. Celebrity Academics. 8. The Celebrity Scientists: A collective case study. 9. Science hype and celebrity culture make a bad pair. 10. The rise of the Super Profs: should we be worried about celebrity academics?. 11. Celebrity academics and superstar professors. 12. Do We Need Academic Celebrities?. 13. ‘Lame’ celebrity academics feed ‘psychopathic careerism’. 14. Galileo was right: universities revolve around their stars. 15. I wanted to be an academic, not a ‘creative’: Notes on universities and the new capitalism. 16. A Brief History of Scientific Celebrity. 17. Review: The New Celebrity Scientists. Out of the Lab and into the Limelight. 18. Scientist or Trope? How does pop culture shape how we view scientists in the real world?. 39 13 ORCID 1. C.B. Carter; C.F. Blanford. All authors must now supply ORCID identifiers, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10853-017-0919-7 2. M. Baglioni; A. Mannocci; P. Manghi; et al. Reflections on the Misuses of ORCID iDs, 2021. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4548308 3. J.A.T. da Silva. Abuse of ORCID’s weaknesses by authors who use paper mills, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03996-x 4. J.A.T. da Silva. Non-compliance with ethical rules caused by misuse of ORCID accounts: Implications for medical publications in the COVID-19 era, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100692 5. J.A.T. da Silva. A dangerous triangularization of conflicting values in academic publishing: ORCID, fake authors, and risks with the lack of criminalization of the creators of fake elements, 2021. DOI: 10.12681/eml.27238 6. J.A.T. da Silva. Is Mandatory ORCID a Violation of an Author’s Freedoms and Rights?, 2022. DOI: 10.1080/00987913.2021.2022395 7. J.A.T. da Silva. Discontinuity between journals’ registration and submission requirements for Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID), 2024. DOI: 10.1111/nae2.12061 8. F. Houghton; A. Foster. Resistance and Power in Irish Higher Education: ORCID and the Monitored University, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102853 9. J.A.T. da Silva; B. Yang; M. Choras. Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCIDs) with the name ‘ORCID’: Risk to the integrity of the ORCID registry, 2025. DOI: 10.1177/01655515251362406 10. ORCID: Issues and concerns about its use for academic purposes and research integrity. 11. Problems with ORCID, or Why I Don’t Have an ORCID Number. 12. Problems with ORCID, or 10 reasons why I don’t have an ORCID number. 14 Grade Inflation 1. E. Pattison; E. Grodsky; C. Muller. Is the Sky Falling? Grade Inflation and the Signaling Power of Grades, 2013. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X13481382 2. I. Finefter-Rosenbluh; M. Levinson. What Is Wrong With Grade Inflation (if Anything)?, 2015. DOI: 10.7202/1070362ar 40 3. F. Chowdhury. Grade Inflation: Causes, Consequences and Cure, 2018. DOI: 10.5539/jel.v7n6p86 4. M. Nordin; G. Heckley; U. Gerdtham. The impact of grade inflation on higher education enrolment and earnings, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101936 5. Y. Cheng; D. Kong. Are female teachers more likely to practice grade inflation? Evidence from China, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2023.101987 6. E. Karadag; I.T. Dortyol. Evidence of grade inflation in bachelor of business administration degrees in Turkey for the period from 2002 to 2022, 2024. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02868-y 7. Y. Kiziltas. An important problem we need to face in schools: Inflated grades and grade inflation, 2024. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12744 8. E. Tamir. Who cares about grade inflation? The role of institutional policy in regulating course grades in higher education, 2025. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2572031 9. C.N. Radavoi; C. Quadrelli; P. Collins. Moral Responsibility for Grade Inflation: Where Does It Lie?, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-025-09627-x 10. Grade inflation. 11. Universities told to end ‘spiralling’ grade inflation. 12. The Impact of Unexplained Grade Inflation on Top Grades in UK Universities. 13. The great university con: how the British degree lost its value. 14. Grade inflation: a clear and present danger. 15. Universities to be fined for awarding too many top degrees. 16. Is grade inflation a worldwide trend?. 17. Grade inflation: The biggest threat to academic standards and university credibility. 18. What’s your degree worth? UoM grade inflation revealed. 19. Explaining "unexplained" grade inflation in the UK’s universities. 20. A Decade of Grade Inflation boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic - An Empirical Analysis of a Top European University. 21. Is grade inflation running wild?. 22. The Perverse Consequences of the Easy A. 23. Grade Inflation ... Why It’s a Nightmare. 24. To Counter Grade Inflation, We Need To Change The Way We Teach. 25. ‘Soul-Crushing’: Students Slam Harvard’s Grade Inflation Report. 26. Maintaining the credibility of degrees. 27. Harvard says it’s been giving too many A grades to students. 41