The Da k Sides o Mode n Science:
C edi A ibu ion, Ci a ion and Impac
Taha Sochi (Con ac : .soc[email p o ec ed])
London, Uni ed Kingdom
Abs ac : This is he six h a icle in ou se ies “The Da k Sides o Mode n Science” and
is abou he c edi a ibu ion, ci a ion and impac in he scien i ic ci cles and li e a u e
(whe e science means knowledge in gene al). The ema ks ha we s a ed in he In oduc-
ion o he i s a icle o his se ies (i.e. “Knowledge P oduc ion and Au ho ing”) gene ally
apply o his a icle and hence we do no need o epea .
Keywo ds: E hics o science, e hics o knowledge, mo ali y in science, academic miscon-
duc , co up ion in science, co up ion ela ed o science.
1
Con en s
Abs ac 1
Table o Con en s 2
1 Ci a ion Me ics 3
2 Ci a ion Misconduc 8
3 Ci a ion Biases and Dispa i ies 13
4 Ques ionable Types and P ac ices o Ci a ion 17
5 Ci a ion Value 21
6 Ci a ion and A i icial In elligence 24
7 Ci a ion and Ques ionable Publishing 25
8 Ci a ion and Re ac ion 27
9 Ci a ion and Indexing Engines and Da abases 30
10 Awa ds and Hono s 34
11 Idoliza ion, Fab ica ion and In la ion 36
12 Celeb i y Cul u e 39
13 ORCID 40
14 G ade In la ion 40
15 E alua ing and Quan i ying C edi 42
16 Fake Quali ica ions 43
17 Miscellaneous 43
2
1 Ci a ion Me ics
1. J.B. Thomas. Schola ly P oduc i i y in Psychology: a c i icism o ci a ion coun e-
sea ch, 1980. DOI: 10.1080/0141192800060109
2. S. Hansson. Impac ac o as a misleading ool in e alua ion o medical jou nals, 1995.
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92749-2
3. P.O. Seglen. Why he impac ac o o jou nals should no be used o e alua ing
esea ch, 1997. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.314.7079.497
4. N.M. Meenen. The impac ac o –a eliable scien ome ic pa ame e ?, 1997. DOI:
10.1007/BF02630217
5. F. Hech ; B.K. Hech ; A.A. Sandbe g. The Jou nal "Impac Fac o ": A Misnamed,
Misleading, Misused Measu e, 1998. DOI: 10.1016/S0165-4608(97)00459-7
6. S. Bloch; G. Wal e . The Impac Fac o : Time o Change, 2001.
DOI: 10.1080/0004867010060502
7. D. Colquhoun. Challenging he y anny o impac ac o s, 2003. DOI: 10.1038/423479a
8. R. Es on. The impac ac o : a misleading and lawed measu e o esea ch quali y, 2005.
DOI: 10.1080/02640410400014208
9. J.E. Hi sch. An index o quan i y an indi idual’s scien i ic esea ch ou pu , 2005. DOI:
10.1073/pnas.0507655102
10. Edi o ial. The Impac Fac o Game, 2006. DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pmed.0030291
11. C.L.S. Co yn. The Use and Abuse o Ci a ions as Indica o s o Resea ch Quali y, 2006.
DOI: 10.56645/jmde. 3i4.82
12. D.L. Pa nas. S op he numbe s game, 2007. DOI: 10.1145/1297797.1297815
13. P. Jacso. The p os and cons o compu ing he h-index using Google Schola , 2008. DOI:
10.1108/14684520810889718
14. R. Smi h. Bewa e he y anny o impac ac o s, 2008.
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B2.20258
15. M. Szklo. Impac Fac o : Good Reasons o Conce n, 2008.
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31816b6a7a
16. M.E. Falagas; V.G. Alexiou. The op- en in jou nal impac ac o manipula ion, 2008.
DOI: 10.1007/s00005-008-0024-5
17. D.A. Pendlebu y. The use and misuse o jou nal me ics and o he ci a ion indica o s,
2009. DOI: 10.1007/s00005-009-0008-y
18. C. Labbé. Ike An ka e one o he g ea s a s in he scien i ic i mamen , 2010. HAL Id:
hal-00713564, e sion 1
3
19. J. Beel; B. Gipp. Academic Sea ch Engine Spam and Google Schola ’s Resilience
Agains i , 2010. DOI: 10.3998/3336451.0013.305
20. A.F. Ma ogenis; P. Ruggie i; P.J. Papagelopoulos. Edi o ial: Sel -ci a ion in Publish-
ing, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8
21. G.E. Hun ; M. Clea y; G. Wal e . Psychia y and he Hi sch h-index: The Rela ionship
Be ween Jou nal Impac Fac o s and Acc ued Ci a ions, 2010.
DOI: 10.3109/10673229.2010.493742
22. E.D. Lopez-Coza ; N. Robinson-Ga cia; D. To es-Salinas. Manipula ing Google Schola
Ci a ions and Google Schola Me ics: simple, easy and emp ing, 2012.
DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .1212.0638
23. R. Mu z; H.-D. Daniel. Skewed ci a ion dis ibu ions and bias ac o s: Solu ions o wo
co e p oblems wi h he jou nal impac ac o , 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.12.006
24. M. Jalalian; H. Mahboobi. New co up ion de ec ed: Bogus impac ac o s compiled by
ake o ganiza ions, 2013. DOI: 10.14661/2013.685-686
25. C. Fleck. The Impac Fac o Fe ishism, 2013. DOI: 10.1017/S0003975613000167
26. C.R. Ca pen e ; D.C. Cone; C.C. Sa li. Using Publica ion Me ics o Highligh Aca-
demic P oduc i i y and Resea ch Impac , 2014. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12482
27. W. Blockmans; L. Engwall; D. Weai e. Bibliome ics: Use and Abuse in he Re iew o
Resea ch Pe o mance. 2014. ISBN: 9781855781955
28. S.-C. Fu; K.-M. Chan. Ranking o o hopaedic jou nals: A challenge o he ci a ion-
based me ics, 2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.jo .2014.03.005
29. F.R.S. Gu ie ez; J. Beall; D.A. Fo e o. Spu ious al e na i e impac ac o s: The scale
o he p oblem om an academic pe spec i e, 2015. DOI: 10.1002/bies.201500011
30. M. Jalalian. The s o y o ake impac ac o companies and how we de ec ed hem,
2015. DOI: 10.14661/2015.1069-1072
31. H.I. B owman. The use and misuse o bibliome ic indices in e alua ing schola ly pe -
o mance, 2015. DOI: 10.7557/5.3670
32. E. Callaway. Bea i , impac ac o ! Publishing eli e u ns agains con o e sial me ic,
2016. DOI: 10.1038/na u e.2016.20224
33. J. Bohannon. Ha e jou nal impac ac o s? New s udy gi es you one mo e eason, 2016.
DOI: 10.1126/science.aag0643
34. M. Dadkhah; G. Bo cha d ; M. Lagzian; G. Biancia di. Academic Jou nals Plagued by
Bogus Impac Fac o s, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-017-9509-4
35. J. Ra ensc o ; M. Liaka a; A. Cla e; D. Duma. Measu ing scien i ic impac beyond
academia: An assessmen o exis ing impac me ics and p oposed imp o emen s, 2017.
4
DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0173152
36. J.A.T. da Sil a; J. Dob anszki. Mul iple e sions o he h-index: cau iona y use o
o mal academic pu poses, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2680-3
37. R. Cos as; T. F anssen. Re lec ions a ound ‘ he cau iona y use’ o he h-index: esponse
o Teixei a da Sil a and Dob ánszki, 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2683-0
38. F.M. Paulus; N. C uz; S. K ach. The Impac Fac o Fallacy, 2018.
DOI: 10.3389/ psyg.2018.01487
39. E.C. McKie nan; L.A. Schimanski; C.M. Nie es; e al. Me a-Resea ch: Use o he Jou -
nal Impac Fac o in academic e iew, p omo ion, and enu e e alua ions, 2019. DOI:
10.7554/eLi e.47338
40. M. Fi e; C. Gues in. O e -op imiza ion o academic publishing me ics: obse ing
Goodha ’s Law in ac ion, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giz053
41. D. Juyal; V. Thawani; A. Sayana; S. Pal. Impac ac o : Mu a ion, manipula ion, and
dis o ion, 2019. DOI: 10.4103/j mpc.j mpc_515_19
42. H. Else. Impac ac o s a e s ill widely used in academic e alua ions, 2019. DOI:
10.1038/d41586-019-01151-4
43. C.A. Chapman; J.C. Bicca-Ma ques; S. Cal ignac-Spence ; e al. Games academics play
and hei consequences: how au ho ship, h-index and jou nal impac ac o s a e shaping
he u u e o academia, 2019. DOI: 10.1098/ spb.2019.2047
44. J.R. De o i; D.C. No ell; J.R. Chapman. Measu ing Academic Success: The A and
Science o Publica ion Me ics, 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219831003
45. D.G. Ka i sis. Jou nal Impac Fac o : Widely Used, Misused and Abused, 2019.
PMID: 31463051
46. L. Benne ; D.A. Eisne ; A.J. Gunn. Misleading wi h ci a ion s a is ics?, 2019. DOI:
10.1113/JP277847
47. A.M. Pe e sen; R.K. Pan; F. Pammolli; S. Fo una o. Me hods o accoun o ci a ion
in la ion in esea ch e alua ion, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2019.04.009
48. M. Biagioli; A. Lippman (Edi o s). Gaming he Me ics: Misconduc and Manipula ion
in Academic Resea ch. 2020. ISBN: 9780262356565
49. J. Qian; Z. Yuan; J. Li; H. Zhu. Science Ci a ion Index (SCI) and scien i ic e alua ion
sys em in China, 2020. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00604-w
50. L. Lei; Y. Sun. Should highly ci ed i ems be excluded in impac ac o calcula ion? The
e ec o e iew a icles on jou nal impac ac o , 2020.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03338-y
51. F. Bu ne ; C.L. A de n; P. Blazey; e al. Coun ing publica ions and ci a ions is no
5
jus i ele an : i is an incen i e ha sub e s he impac o clinical esea ch, 2020.
DOI: 10.1136/bjspo s-2020-103146
52. R.I. A oei a; M.A.R.B. Cas anho. Can ci a ion me ics p edic he ue impac o
scien i ic pape s?, 2020. DOI: 10.1111/ ebs.15255
53. J.A.T. da Sil a. Pape mills and on-demand publishing: Risks o he in eg i y o jou nal
indexing and me ics, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.mja i.2020.08.003
54. V. Kol un; D. Ha ne . The h-index is no longe an e ec i e co ela e o scien i ic epu-
a ion, 2021. DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0253397
55. A. Jain; K.S. Kho ; D. Bea d; e al. Do jou nals aise hei impac ac o o SCImago
anking by sel -ci ing in edi o ials? A bibliome ic analysis o auma and o hopaedic
jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1111/ans.16546
56. Z. Taskin; G. Dogan; E. Kulczycki; A.A. Zuccala. Sel -Ci a ion Pa e ns o Jou nals
Indexed in he Jou nal Ci a ion Repo s, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101221
57. E. Quaia; F. Ve nuccio. The H Index My h: A Fo m o Fana icism o a Simple Miscon-
cep ion?, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/ omog aphy8030102
58. M.R. Doughe y; Z. Ho ne. Ci a ion coun s and jou nal impac ac o s do no cap u e
some indica o s o esea ch quali y in he beha iou al and b ain sciences, 2022. DOI:
10.1098/ sos.220334
59. Y. Zhou. Fac o s, componen s and dynamics: in es iga ion o jou nal sel -ci a ion and
ci a ion by equal oppo uni y model, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10292
60. C. B icke -An hony; R.W. He zog. Dis o ion o jou nal impac ac o s in he e a o
pape mills, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.ym he.2023.05.008
61. H. Mondal; K.K. Deepak; M. Gup a; R. Kuma . The h-Index: Unde s anding i s
p edic o s, signi icance, and c i icism, 2023. DOI: 10.4103/j mpc.j mpc_1613_23
62. E. Shiah; A.J. Heiman; J.A. Ricci. E alua ion o he i10-Index in Plas ic Su ge y
Resea ch and i s Co ela ion wi h Al me ic A en ion Sco es and T adi ional Au ho
Bibliome ics: An E alua ion o a Single Jou nal, 2023. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1760827
63. A. Mace. The Limi s o Ci a ion Coun s, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .1711.02695
64. D.W. Aksnes; F.N. Pi o; L.W. Fossum. Ci a ion me ics co a y wi h esea che s’ as-
sessmen s o he quali y o hei wo ks, 2023. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00241
65. G. Kendall. Mo e T anspa ency is Needed When Ci ing h-Indexes, Jou nal Impac
Fac o s and Ci eSco es, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-024-09983-3
66. P. Mo a; S. Pilia. A p oposed amewo k o add ess me ic in la ion in esea ch publi-
ca ions, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280
67. M.K. Akh a . The H-index is an un eliable esea ch me ic o e alua ing he publica ion
6
impac o expe imen al scien is s, 2024. DOI: 10.3389/ ma.2024.1385080
68. T. Sochi. P ac ices and Me ics o Ci a ion in Schola ly Publishing, 2025. DOI:
10.2139/ss n.5297510
69. I.R. Dhamsania; A.E. Zhou; B. Sloan; J.M. G an -Kels. E hics o ci a ion in la ion, au-
ho ship in la ion, and b ibe y in academic esea ch, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2024.10.015
70. Misleading Me ics.
71. Misleading Me ics.
72. Unde s anding esea ch me ics.
73. Does au ho ship mean any hing when academic pape s a e simply ci able okens?.
74. Pe o mance-d i en cul u e is uining scien i ic esea ch.
75. The p os and cons o key me ics.
76. Me ics o a oid - he impac ac o .
77. The co up ing e ec s o academic ci a ion me ics.
78. F aud by Numbe s: Me ics and he New Academic Misconduc .
79. Edi o manipula ion o impac ac o .
80. Skewed Ci a ions A ec ing Jou nal Impac Fac o - Need o ailo ing jou nal e alua ion
me ics ac oss disciplines.
81. A e s anda d me ics o academic ou pu skewed by he ela i e popula i y o a ield?.
82. The "impac " o he Jou nal Impac Fac o in he e iew, enu e, and p omo ion p ocess.
83. The Impac Fac o Deba e: Assessing Jou nal P es ige and Resea ch Quali y.
84. The allu e o he jou nal impac ac o holds i m, despi e i s laws.
85. Measu ing Wha Ma e s: On he Ty anny o Academic Me ics.
86. Jou nal impac ac o s w ongly used o e alua e esea ch.
87. Sick o Impac Fac o s.
88. Why is i bad o judge a pape by ci a ion coun ?.
89. The academic pape s esea che s ega d as signi ican a e no hose ha a e highly ci ed.
90. Assessing indi idual esea ch pe o mance.
91. Wha ’s w ong wi h he h-index, acco ding o i s in en o .
92. Why he h-index is a bogus measu e o academic impac .
93. Reliabili y o esea che me ic he h-index is in decline.
94. How Bibliome ics Incen i ize Sel -Ci a ion.
95. Fou easons o s op ca ing so much abou he h-index.
96. I I w i e a eally bad, bu con o e sial, pape , can I inc ease my h-index?.
97. Wha a e he limi a ions o using ci a ion coun s o e alua e esea ch impac ?.
7
98. The Un ai ness o Ci a ions.
99. Ci a ion indexes make esea ch mo e unequal.
100. How Pe o mance E alua ion Me ics Co up Resea che s.
101. D essing up I esponsible Me ics as Responsible Me ics.
102. Be he educa ed use - A icle me ics.
103. Ci a ion me ics, do hey wo k?.
104. Reading be ween he lines on ci a ion alue.
105. Lis o P eda o y Indexe s and Fake Impac Fac o s.
106. Manipula able Google Schola Ci a ion Coun s.
107. Limi a ions o ci a ion analysis on he measu emen o esea ch impac : A summa y.
108. Th ee Common Pi alls To A oid When Using Ci a ion Me ics.
109. P eda o y and Misleading Me ics.
110. Majo indexing se ice sounds ala m on sel -ci a ions by nea ly 50 jou nals.
111. Ci a ion in la ion.
112. How he In la ion o Jou nal Ci a ions Impac s Academia.
113. Impac Fac o in la ion : Mul idisciplina y Publishing Ins i u e (MDPI).
114. "Resea che s mus play games ha damage he quali y o science".
2 Ci a ion Misconduc
1. D. Teodo escu; T. And ei. An examina ion o "ci a ion ci cles" o social sciences
jou nals in Eas e n Eu opean coun ies, 2014. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1210-6
2. M. Jalalian. The s o y o ake impac ac o companies and how we de ec ed hem,
2015. DOI: 10.14661/2015.1069-1072
3. M. Biagioli. Wa ch ou o chea s in ci a ion game, 2016. DOI: 10.1038/535201a
4. I. Fis e J .; I. Fis e ; M. Pe c. Towa d he Disco e y o Ci a ion Ca els in Ci a ion
Ne wo ks, 2016. DOI: 10.3389/ phy.2016.00049
5. E.A. Fong; A.W. Wilhi e. Au ho ship and ci a ion manipula ion in academic esea ch,
2017. DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0187394
6. C.F. Hickman; E.A. Fong; A.W. Wilhi e; Y. Lee. Academic misconduc and c iminal lia-
bili y: Manipula ing academic jou nal impac ac o s, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scz019
7. A. Wilhi e; E.A. Fong; S. Wilhi e. The in luence o edi o ial decisions and he academic
ne wo k on sel -ci a ions and jou nal impac ac o s, 2019.
DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2019.03.003
8
8. R.V. Noo den; D.S. Chawla. Hund eds o ex eme sel -ci ing scien is s e ealed in new
da abase, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7
9. M. Biagioli; A. Lippman (Edi o s). Gaming he Me ics: Misconduc and Manipula ion
in Academic Resea ch. 2020. ISBN: 9780262356565
10. S. Moussa. A "T ojan ho se" in he e e ence lis s: Ci a ions o a hijacked jou nal in
SSCI-indexed ma ke ing jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388
11. S. Kojaku; G. Li an; N. Masuda. De ec ing anomalous ci a ion g oups in jou nal ne -
wo ks, 2021. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-93572-3
12. M. Gain; N. Soni; S.D. Bha ani. De ec ion o Po en ial Ci a ion Clubs in Bibliog aphic
Ne wo ks, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-16-5348-3_56
13. M. Meh egan. Scien i ic jou nals mus be ale o po en ial manipula ion in ci a ions
and e e encing, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/17470161211068745
14. J.D. W en; C. Geo gescu. De ec ing anomalous e e encing pa e ns in PubMed pape s
sugges i e o au ho -cen ic e e ence lis manipula ion, 2022.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04503-6
15. D.S. Chawla. Resea che s who ag ee o manipula e ci a ions a e mo e likely o ge hei
pape s published, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-01532-w
16. S.J.A. Zaidi; M. Taqi. Ci a ion Ca els in Medical and Den al Jou nals, 2023. DOI:
10.29271/jcpsp.2023.06.700
17. P. Lu. The Righ , W ong, and Une hical Ways in Re e ence Ci a ions, 2023. DOI:
10.2514/1.G007372
18. M. Ca anza o. Saudi uni e si ies lose highly ci ed esea che s a e paymen schemes
aise e hics conce ns, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.zhs1429
19. P. Mo a; S. Pilia. A p oposed amewo k o add ess me ic in la ion in esea ch publi-
ca ions, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280
20. D.S. Chawla. The ci a ion black ma ke : schemes selling ake e e ences ala m scien is s,
2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-01672-7
21. M. Ca anza o. Ci a ion ca els help some ma hema icians - and hei uni e si ies -
climb he ankings, 2024. DOI: 10.1126/science.zcl2s6d
22. M.M. Willie. Ci a ion Ca els: Unde s anding Thei Eme gence and Impac on he
Academic Wo ld, 2024. DOI: 10.52970/g dis. 4i2.581
23. D.E. W igh . Fi e p oblems plaguing publishing in he li e sciences-and one common
cause, 2024. DOI: 10.1002/1873-3468.15018
24. K. Langin. Vendo o e ing ci a ions o pu chase is la es bad ac o in schola ly pub-
lishing, 2024. DOI: 10.1126/science.zk7dou0
9
he gende disad an age, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2023.104895
42. D.S. Chawla. Sel -ci a ions in a ound a dozen coun ies a e unusually high, 2024. DOI:
10.1038/d41586-024-00090-z
43. D. No mile. A ‘home bias’ in ci a ions boos s China’s global science anking, 2024.
DOI: 10.1126/science.ad 5690
44. S. Qiu; C. S einwende ; P. Azoulay. Pape Tige ? Chinese Science and Home Bias in
Ci a ions, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jin eco.2025.104123
45. Edi o ial. Ci a ion di e si y s a emen s, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s44159-025-00497-z
46. R.A. Campbell; E. Hels om; L. Chew; e al. Gende Dispa i ies in Ci a ions and Al -
me ic A en ion Sco e in Oncology, 2025. DOI: 10.1200/OP-24-00767
47. I.F. de Fuen es. The gende ci a ion gap, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.new on.2025.100099
48. X. Yang; P. Zhou. Un eiling ci a ion bias in economics: Tas e-based disc imina ion
agains Chinese-au ho ed pape s, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.labeco.2025.102725
49. L. Bo nmann; C. Leibel. Ci a ion accu acy, ci a ion noise, and ci a ion bias: A oun-
da ion o ci a ion analysis, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2508.12735
50. J. He. Who Ge s Ci ed? Gende - and Majo i y-Bias in LLM-D i en Re e ence Selec-
ion, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2508.02740
51. Home bias and China’s global s anding in science.
52. Unin ended Consequences: The Pe ils o Publica ion and Ci a ion Bias.
53. China’s scien is s o en ci e wo k om hei own na ion. Is ha skewing global esea ch
ankings?.
54. Some o The Wo ld’s Mos -Ci ed Scien is s Ha e a Sec e Tha ’s Jus Been Exposed.
55. S op ake ci a ions.
56. Ci a ion Bias - Con i ma ion Bias o Scien is s.
57. Chemis y esea che s ci e hei own wo k he mos .
58. One-sided e e ence bias.
59. Wha is in a Name? Addi ional Sou ces o Bias in Ci a ion Coun s.
60. Weekend eads: Sel -ci a ion a ms; an edi o e uses o e ac ; publishing en e s poli-
ics.
61. Do We Need A Sel -Ci a ion Index?.
62. Use and Abuse o Ci a ions.
63. Re e ence Bias: Iden i ying and Reducing in Su eys and Resea ch.
64. Ci a ion indexes make esea ch mo e unequal.
65. Inequi ies o Race, Place, and Gende Among he Communica ion Ci a ion Eli e, 2000-
16
2019.
66. Why a e women ci ed less han men?.
67. Men Fo ge Abou Female Resea che s, Says S udy On Gende Ci a ion Gap.
68. The Racial Poli ics o Ci a ion.
69. Ci a ional Racism: How Leading Medical Jou nals Rep oduce Seg ega ion in Ame ican
Medical Knowledge.
70. Ci a ions in science a e biased owa ds a hand ul o na ions - and he gap is g owing.
71. The poli ics o ci a ion: Is he pee e iew p ocess biased agains Indigenous academics?.
72. Weal hy na ions ake in he ci a ions while poo e coun ies go unde -acknowledged.
73. Wha o do abou gende and geo/linguis ic bias in academic ci a ions?.
74. The poli ics o ci a ion.
75. Waking up o he poli ics o ci a ion.
76. Academic publishing ends: sel -ci a ions and a o i ism.
77. Ci a ion: Resea ch Managemen Tools.
78. The Poli ics o Ci a ion: An Analysis o Doc o al Theses ac oss Disciplines.
79. Towa ds Ci a ional Jus ice.
80. Aspi a ional me ics - A guide o wo king owa ds ci a ional jus ice.
81. Jou nal sel -ci a ions a e inc easingly biased owa d impac ac o yea s.
82. The ole o us and au ho i y in he ci a ion beha iou o esea che s.
83. Losing he numbe s game: abundan sel -ci a ions pu jou nals a isk o a li e wi hou
an impac ac o .
84. Bias agains no el y in science: A cau iona y ale o use s o bibliome ic indica o s.
4 Ques ionable Types and P ac ices o Ci a ion
1. A.F. Ma ogenis; P. Ruggie i; P.J. Papagelopoulos. Edi o ial: Sel -ci a ion in Publish-
ing, 2010. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-010-1480-8
2. A.W. Wilhi e; E.A. Fong. Coe ci e Ci a ion in Academic Publishing, 2012. DOI:
10.1126/science.1212540
3. B.D. Thombs; I. Razyko . A solu ion o inapp op ia e sel -ci a ion ia pee e iew,
2012. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.120597
4. M.R. Olsson. Au ho -Cons uc s & T ojan ho se-ing: Academic ci a ion as a s a egic
discu si e p ac ice, 2012. DOI: 10.1002/mee .2011.14504801087
5. C.-L. Chang; M. McAlee ; L. Oxley. Coe ci e jou nal sel ci a ions, impac ac o ,
17
Jou nal In luence and A icle In luence, 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j.ma com.2013.04.006
6. B.D. Thombs; A.W. Le is; I. Razyko ; e al. Po en ially coe ci e sel -ci a ion by pee
e iewe s: A c oss-sec ional s udy, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsycho es.2014.09.015
7. M. Maes. A e iew on ci a ion amnesia in dep ession and in lamma ion esea ch, 2015.
PMID: 25789583
8. C. Cho us; L. Wal man. A La ge-Scale Analysis o Impac Fac o Biased Jou nal Sel -
Ci a ions, 2016. DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0161021
9. D. Shaw. The T ojan Ci a ion and he "Acciden al" Plagia is , 2016.
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-015-9696-7
10. J.A.T. da Sil a. The e hics o pee and edi o ial eques s o sel -ci a ion o hei wo k
and jou nal, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.mja i.2016.11.008
11. M. Dadkhah; M. Lagzian; G. Bo cha d . Ques ionable pape s in ci a ion da abases as
an issue o li e a u e e iew, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6
12. J.D. W en; A. Valencia; J. Kelso. Re iewe -coe ced ci a ion: case epo , upda e on
jou nal policy and sugges ions o u u e p e en ion, 2019.
DOI: 10.1093/bioin o ma ics/b z071
13. M. an de Wee ; L. S ella. The dange s o ci ing pape s you did no ead o unde s and,
2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.mols uc.2019.03.024
14. J. Baas; C. Fennell. When Pee Re iewe s Go Rogue - Es ima ed P e alence o Ci a ion
Manipula ion by Re iewe s Based on he Ci a ion Pa e ns o 69,000 Re iewe s, 2019.
Sou ce: h ps://pape s.ss n.com/sol3/pape s.c m?abs ac _id=3339568
15. D.S. Chawla. Else ie in es iga es hund eds o pee e iewe s o manipula ing ci a ions,
2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02639-9
16. L. Zhou; U. Amadi; D. Zhang. Is Sel -Ci a ion Biased? An In es iga ion ia he Lens
o Ci a ion Pola i y, Densi y, and Loca ion, 2020. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-018-9889-9
17. M. Szomszo ; D.A. Pendlebu y; J. Adams. How much is oo much? The di e ence
be ween esea ch in luence and sel -ci a ion excess, 2020.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5
18. R.V. Noo den. Highly ci ed esea che banned om jou nal boa d o ci a ion abuse,
2020. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00335-7
19. D. Lyu; X. Ruan; J. Xie; Y. Cheng. The classi ica ion o ci ing mo i a ions: a me a-
syn hesis, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03908-z
20. F. San ilippo; S. Tigano; A. Mo gana; e al. Sel -ci a ion policies and jou nal sel -ci a ion
a e among C i ical Ca e Medicine jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s40560-021-00530-2
21. Z. Taskin; G. Dogan; E. Kulczycki; A.A. Zuccala. Sel -Ci a ion Pa e ns o Jou nals
18
Indexed in he Jou nal Ci a ion Repo s, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101221
22. S. Moussa. A "T ojan ho se" in he e e ence lis s: Ci a ions o a hijacked jou nal in
SSCI-indexed ma ke ing jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388
23. Y. Zhou. Fac o s, componen s and dynamics: in es iga ion o jou nal sel -ci a ion and
ci a ion by equal oppo uni y model, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10292
24. A. Abalkina; G. Cabanac; C. Labbe; A. Magazino . Imp ope legi imiza ion o hijacked
jou nals h ough ci a ions, 2022. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2209.04703
25. S.P.J.M. Ho bach; F.J.W.O. Maa man; W. Hal man; W.M. Hepkema. Au oma ed
ci a ion ecommenda ion ools encou age ques ionable ci a ions, 2022.
DOI: 10.1093/ ese al/ ac016
26. P. Lu. The Righ , W ong, and Une hical Ways in Re e ence Ci a ions, 2023. DOI:
10.2514/1.G007372
27. N. Shomoossi; M. Rad. Sel -ci a ion: o do o no o do?, 2023.
DOI: 10.18502/jmehm. 16i1.12884
28. D.Z. Basil; S. Bu on; A. Sobole a; P. Nesbi . Coe ci e Ci a ion: Unde s anding he
P oblem and Wo king Towa d a Solu ion, 2023. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2022.0081
29. E.A. Fong; R. Pa nayakuni; A.W. Wilhi e. Accommoda ing coe cion: Au ho s, edi o s,
and ci a ions, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2023.104754
30. M. Meh egan; M. Moghiman. The Unno iced Issue o Coe ci e Ci a ion Beha io o
Au ho s, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s12109-024-09994-0
31. J.P. Wahle; T. Ruas; M. Abdalla; e al. Ci a ion Amnesia: On The Recency Bias o
NLP and O he Academic Fields, 2024. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2402.12046
32. S. Bu on; D.Z. Basil; A. Sobole a; P. Nesbi . Ci e me! Pe spec i es on coe ci e ci a ion
in e iewing, 2024. DOI: 10.1108/JSM-08-2024-0387
33. S. Macdonald. Au ho ship in Academic Publishing and he Thi s o Ci a ion, 2025.
DOI: 10.2139/ss n.5134231
34. T. Sochi. P ac ices and Me ics o Ci a ion in Schola ly Publishing, 2025. DOI:
10.2139/ss n.5297510
35. Sel -ci a ion: why (o why no ), how, and when?.
36. Add essing Re iewe Misconduc in Schola ly Publishing: MDPI’s P oac i e S eps.
37. Edi o manipula ion o impac ac o .
38. Wha is sel -ci a ion and wha does i ha e o do wi h academic in eg i y?.
39. Do We Need A Sel -Ci a ion Index?.
40. 14 Kinds o Bogus Ci a ions.
19
41. E hically Ques ionable Ci a ion P ac ices.
42. The P oblem wi h Too Much Sel -Ci a ion.
43. The E hics o Sel -Ci a ion.
44. I spo ed a pape wi h an absu d amoun o sel ci a ions. Is his no mal?.
45. The dange s o excessi e sel -ci a ion.
46. on he pe ils o sel -ci a ion.
47. The Pe ils o Sel -Ci a ion: How I Can Ruin You Academic Ca ee .
48. Sel -Ci a ion: The Risks and Bene i s.
49. Should you ci e you sel o no ? a oid ci ing you published pape s in his publishe
whene e possible in he u u e.
50. Should sel -ci a ions be included o excluded om measu es o academic pe o mance?.
51. Jou nal sel -ci a ion in he Jou nal Ci a ion Repo s - Science Edi ion (2002).
52. 2 open-access publishe s accused o excessi e sel -ci a ion.
53. Majo indexing se ice sounds ala m on sel -ci a ions by nea ly 50 jou nals.
54. Coe ci e ci a ion.
55. Expe iences wi h ‘coe ci e ci a ion’.
56. Ways o A oid Coe ci e Ci a ions in You Resea ch W i ing.
57. Le ’s alk abou coe ci e ci a ion - and s and up o i .
58. Sel -ci a ions: a e hey good o bad?.
59. Ci a ion amnesia: No good o ou heal h.
60. Fo go en Knowledge: Examining he Ci a ional Amnesia in NLP.
61. Ci a ion amnesia: The esul s.
62. Ci a ion amnesia: New on and Alhacen’s o go en connec ion.
63. F om Ci a ion Amnesia o Bibliog aphic Plagia ism.
64. The Pe ils o Ci a ion.
65. Ci e you sel excessi ely, apologize, hen epublish he pape s wi h ewe sel -ci a ions.
Jou nal says: Fine.
66. Wha does ci a ion mean? Values and p ac ices in schola ly wo k.
67. Su ey on inadequa e and omi ed ci a ions in manusc ip s: a p ecu so y s udy in
iden i ica ion o asks o a li e a u e e iew and manusc ip w i ing assis i e sys em.
68. Ci ing Sou ces ha We e No Read o Tho oughly Unde s ood.
69. The Impac o Inco ec Ci a ions in Academic Wo k.
70. Coe ci e ci a ions: he p ice o being published.
71. How Bibliome ics Incen i ize Sel -Ci a ion.
72. A. Mu a E en’s Pos .
20
73. Re iewe asking o ci ing 5 o his i ele an a icles.
74. A ‘joke’: Pape wi h ‘comple ely i ele an ’ ci a ions e ac ed.
75. Timo Mandle ’s Pos .
76. P e en ing Ci a ion Manipula ion Du ing Pee Re iews.
77. Ci ing wo ks in a lis wi hou ha ing ead hem.
78. he ci a ion dump - and h ee mo e ci a ion ac ics o a oid.
79. Edi o and e iewe s equi ing au ho s o ci e hei own wo k.
80. My e iewe o ced me o ci e his pape s.
81. Ci e o be damned: Some Though s on Re iewe -Coe ced Ci a ion.
82. The case o he e iewe who said ci e me o I won’ ecommend accep ance o you
wo k.
83. When Jou nal Edi o s Coe ce Au ho s o Sel -Ci e.
5 Ci a ion Value
Also see he p e ious sec ions ( e e o §1,§2,§3and §4).
1. M.A. Fe be . Ci a ions: A e They an Objec i e Measu e o Schola ly Me i ?, 1986.
DOI: 10.1086/494230
2. Edi o ial. Ci a ion da a: he w ong impac ?, 1998. DOI: 10.1038/3639
3. P. Nieminen; J. Ca pen e ; G. Rucke ; M. Schumache . The ela ionship be ween quali y
o esea ch and ci a ion equency, 2006. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-42
4. P.O. Seglen. Ci a ions and jou nal impac ac o s: ques ionable indica o s o esea ch
quali y, 2007. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1997. b00175.x
5. C.T. Be gs om; J.D. Wes ; M.A. Wiseman. The Eigen ac o TM Me ics, 2008. DOI:
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0003-08.2008
6. P.A. Todd; R.J. Ladle. Ci a ions: poo p ac ices by au ho s educe hei alue, 2008.
DOI: 10.1038/451244b
7. B.R. Ma in. Whi he esea ch in eg i y? Plagia ism, sel -plagia ism and coe ci e ci a-
ion in an age o esea ch assessmen , 2013. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2013.03.011
8. Edi o ial. The maze o impac me ics, 2013. DOI: 10.1038/502271a
9. C.W. Bel e . Bibliome ic indica o s: oppo uni ies and limi s, 2015.
DOI: 10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.014
10. J. Ruscio. Taking Ad an age o Ci a ion Measu es o Schola ly Impac : Hip Hip h
Index!, 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1745691616664436
21
11. L. Leydesdo ; L. Bo nmann; J.A. Comins; S. Miloje ic. Ci a ions: Indica o s o Qual-
i y? The Impac Fallacy, 2016. DOI: 10.3389/ ma.2016.00001
12. B. Duyx; M.J.E. U lings; G.M.H. Swaen. Scien i ic ci a ions a o posi i e esul s: a
sys ema ic e iew and me a-analysis, 2017. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.002
13. D. He manno a; R.M. Pa on; P. Kno h; C.G. S ahl. Ci a ions and Reade ship a e
Poo Indica o s o Resea ch Excellence: In oducing T ueImpac Da ase , a New Da ase
o Valida ing Resea ch E alua ion Me ics, 2017. DOI: 10.1145/3057148.3057154
14. I.A. Moosa. The ci a ion app oach o jou nal anking, 2018.
DOI: 10.4337/9781786434937.00011
15. T. Tyle . Ci a ion Me ics and Impac Fac o s Fail as Measu es o Scien i ic Quali y,
in Pa icula in Taxonomy, and a e Biased by Biological Discipline and by Geog aphic
and Taxonomic Fac o s, 2018. DOI: 10.5735/085.055.0123
16. D.W. Aksnes; L. Lang eld ; P. Wou e s. Ci a ions, Ci a ion Indica o s, and Resea ch
Quali y: An O e iew o Basic Concep s and Theo ies, 2019.
DOI: 10.1177/2158244019829575
17. M. Fi e; C. Gues in. O e -op imiza ion o academic publishing me ics: obse ing
Goodha ’s Law in ac ion, 2019. DOI: 10.1093/gigascience/giz053
18. A.M. Pe e sen; R.K. Pan; F. Pammolli; S. Fo una o. Me hods o accoun o ci a ion
in la ion in esea ch e alua ion, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2019.04.009
19. R.I. A oei a; M.A.R.B. Cas anho. Can ci a ion me ics p edic he ue impac o
scien i ic pape s?, 2020. DOI: 10.1111/ ebs.15255
20. F. Bu ne ; C.L. A de n; P. Blazey; e al. Coun ing publica ions and ci a ions is no
jus i ele an : i is an incen i e ha sub e s he impac o clinical esea ch, 2020.
DOI: 10.1136/bjspo s-2020-103146
21. M. Se a-Ga cia; U. Gneezy. Non eplicable publica ions a e ci ed mo e han eplicable
ones, 2021. DOI: 10.1126/sciad .abd1705
22. D. Lyu; X. Ruan; J. Xie; Y. Cheng. The classi ica ion o ci ing mo i a ions: a me a-
syn hesis, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03908-z
23. F. Shu. Limi a ions o ci a ion analysis on he measu emen o esea ch impac : A
summa y, 2021. DOI: 10.59494/dsi.2021.3.4
24. M.R. Doughe y; Z. Ho ne. Ci a ion coun s and jou nal impac ac o s do no cap u e
some indica o s o esea ch quali y in he beha iou al and b ain sciences, 2022. DOI:
10.1098/ sos.220334
25. M. Tepli skiy; E. Duede; M. Menie i; K.R. Lakhani. How s a us o esea ch pape s
a ec s he way hey a e ead and ci ed, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j. espol.2022.104484
22
26. N. Pon ika; T. Klebel; A. Co eia; e al. Indica o s o esea ch quali y, quan i y, open-
ness, and esponsibili y in ins i u ional e iew, p omo ion, and enu e policies ac oss
se en coun ies, 2022. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00224
27. D.W. Aksnes; F.N. Pi o; L.W. Fossum. Ci a ion me ics co a y wi h esea che s’ as-
sessmen s o he quali y o hei wo ks, 2023. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00241
28. A. Mace. The Limi s o Ci a ion Coun s, 2023. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .1711.02695
29. M. Thelwall; K. Kousha; E. S ua ; e al. In which ields a e ci a ions indica o s o
esea ch quali y?, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24767
30. A. Mu i. P ide and Conce n o Bibliome ic Achie emen s: Dese ed Resul s o Resul
o Ci es In la ion?, 2023. DOI: 10.23749/mdl. 114i4.14990
31. I. E daimon; J.P.A. Ioannidis; G. Nikolen zos; e al. Me ics o De ec Small-Scale and
La ge-Scale Ci a ion O ches a ion, 2024. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2406.19219
32. A. Ma o e hu. Bibliome ics: Applica ion Oppo uni ies and Limi a ions, 2024. DOI:
10.5772/in echopen.1005292
33. A.W.K. Yeung. Is Ci a ion Coun a Legi ima e Indica o o Scien i ic Impac ? A Case
S udy o Uppe (1974) "The Unsuccess ul Sel -T ea men o a Case o W i e ’s Block"
and I s De i a i es, 2024. DOI: 10.3390/publica ions12040035
34. L.V. Ho e. Fake e e ences and he alue o ci a ion da abases, 2025.
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103123
35. Pe o mance-d i en cul u e is uining scien i ic esea ch.
36. Beyond P eda o y Publishing: Addi ional Ques ionable O e s in Schola ly Publishing.
37. Ci a ion S a is ics and Ci a ion Rings.
38. How housands o in isible ci a ions sneak in o pape s and make o ake me ics.
39. Wha does ci a ion mean? Values and p ac ices in schola ly wo k.
40. Wha a e he limi a ions o using ci a ion coun s o e alua e esea ch impac ?.
41. Limi a ions o ci a ion analysis on he measu emen o esea ch impac : A summa y.
42. Limi a ions o bibliome ics.
43. P os and cons o bibliome ics.
44. Bibliome ics and Resea ch E alua ion.
45. ‘Highly Ci ed,’ Highly Con o e sial.
46. Reading be ween he lines on ci a ion alue.
47. Is ci a ion a ue indica o o someone’s esea ch capabili y?.
48. Do Academic Ci a ions Measu e he Impac o New Ideas?.
49. Ci a ion me ics, do hey wo k?.
23
50. Why is i bad o judge a pape by ci a ion coun ?.
51. Why Me ics Canno Measu e Resea ch Quali y: A Response o he HEFCE Consul a-
ion.
52. The ole o us and au ho i y in he ci a ion beha iou o esea che s.
53. Resea ch pape ci a ion may skew i s in luence.
54. Do Academic Ci a ions Measu e he Impac o New Ideas?.
55. When Do Ci a ions Re lec "Impac ?".
56. How Junk Ci a ions Ha e Disc edi ed he Academy.
57. O e 400 Scien i ic Pape s Ha e Ci ed a ‘Phan om’ Re e ence Tha Ne e Exis ed.
58. Ca Becomes Well-Ci ed Schola Wi h New Scam Me hod.
6 Ci a ion and A i icial In elligence
1. T. Day. A P elimina y In es iga ion o Fake Pee -Re iewed Ci a ions and Re e ences
Gene a ed by Cha GPT, 2023. DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2023.2190373
2. A. De Cassai; B. Dos . Conce ns ega ding he unc i ical use o Cha GPT: a c i ical
analysis o AI-gene a ed e e ences in he con ex o egional anes hesia, 2023. DOI:
10.1136/ apm-2023-104771
3. W.H. Wal e s; E.I. Wilde . Fab ica ion and e o s in he bibliog aphic ci a ions gene -
a ed by Cha GPT, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41032-5
4. M. Bha acha yya; V.M. Mille ; D. Bha acha yya; L.E. Mille . High Ra es o Fab i-
ca ed and Inaccu a e Re e ences in Cha GPT-Gene a ed Medical Con en , 2023. DOI:
10.7759/cu eus.39238
5. A. Chen; D.O. Chen. Accu acy o Cha bo s in Ci ing Jou nal A icles, 2023. DOI:
10.1001/jamane wo kopen.2023.27647
6. H.S. Al-Sinani; C.J. Mi chell. F om Con en C ea ion o Ci a ion In la ion: A GenAI
Case S udy, 2025. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2503.23414
7. A. Sha i i. Tackle ake ci a ions gene a ed by AI, 2025.
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-02482-1
8. J. He. Who Ge s Ci ed? Gende - and Majo i y-Bias in LLM-D i en Re e ence Selec ion,
2025. DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .2508.02740
9. E. Gibney. Can esea che s s op AI making up ci a ions?, 2025.
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-025-02853-8
10. N.T. Camp; J.A. Beng son; J.C. Sands om. The ci a ion ca as ophe: P opaga ion o
24
AI-gene a ed coun e ei ci a ions in schola ship, 2025.
DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103065
11. Cha GPT and Fake Ci a ions.
12. The Fab ica ion P oblem: How AI Models Gene a e Fake Ci a ions, URLs, and Re e -
ences.
13. S op ake ci a ions.
14. F ee Ci a ion Checke .
15. Sp inge Na u e e ac s book wi h ake ci a ions. Help us ind mo e cases like his.
16. Cha GPT and Gene a i e A i icial In elligence (AI): Inco ec bibliog aphic e e ences.
17. Fake ci a ions in academic pape s: a g owing conce n.
18. AI Ci a ion Fakes: E oding T us in Resea ch and Legal In eg i y.
19. Gene a i e A i icial In elligence : Fake Ci a ions.
20. Cha GPT Fake Ci a ions.
21. AI Sea ch Has A Ci a ion P oblem.
22. Be Ca e ul... Cha GPT Appea s o be Making up Academic Re e ences.
23. Why does Cha GPT gene a e ake e e ences?.
24. Why Cha GPT C ea es Non-Exis ing Scien i ic Ci a ions (And How I Lea ned This he
Ha d Way).
25. Don’ ge ghos ed: Bewa e o Cha GPT gene a ed ci a ions.
26. Don’ be su p ised by AI cha bo s c ea ing ake ci a ions.
27. Wa ch Ou o Fake Ci a ions om Cha GPT.
28. Recen s udy: AI sea ch engines messing up ci a ions.
7 Ci a ion and Ques ionable Publishing
1. T.F. F andsen. A e p eda o y jou nals unde mining he c edibili y o science? A bib-
liome ic analysis o ci e s, 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2520-x
2. D.S. Chawla. P eda o y-jou nal pape s ha e li le scien i ic impac , 2020.
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-020-00031-6
3. S. Moussa. A "T ojan ho se" in he e e ence lis s: Ci a ions o a hijacked jou nal in
SSCI-indexed ma ke ing jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102388
4. S. Moussa. Ci a ion con agion: a ci a ion analysis o selec ed p eda o y ma ke ing
jou nals, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-020-03729-6
25
DOI: 10.3897/ese.2020.e51987
19. A. Co egiani; M. Ippoli o; G. Ingoglia; e al. Ci a ions and me ics o jou nals discon-
inued om Scopus o publica ion conce ns: he GhoS( )copus P ojec , 2020. DOI:
10.12688/ 1000 esea ch.23847.2
20. N.M. Duc; D.V. Hiep; P.M. Thong; e al. P eda o y Open Access Jou nals a e In-
dexed in Repu able Da abases: a Re isi ing Issue o an Unsol ed P oblem, 2020. DOI:
10.5455/meda h.2020.74.318-322
21. C. Ro i a; L. Codina; C. Lopezosa. Language Bias in he Google Schola Ranking
Algo i hm, 2021. DOI: 10.3390/ i13020031
22. S.-G. Kim. C i ics o majo indexing se ice, 2021. DOI: 10.1186/s40902-021-00321-7
23. F.A. Loan; N. Nas een; B. Bashi . Do au ho s play ai o manipula e Google Schola
h-index?, 2021. DOI: 10.1108/LHT-04-2021-0141
24. W. Liu. Ca ea s o he use o Web o Science Co e Collec ion in old li e a u e e ie al
and his o ical bibliome ic analysis, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j. ech o e.2021.121023
25. D.S. Chawla. Hund eds o ‘p eda o y’ jou nals indexed on leading schola ly da abase,
2021. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-021-00239-0
26. Z. Li; A.W. Raine . Academic sea ch engines: cons ain s, bugs, and ecommenda ions,
2022. DOI: 10.1145/3548659.3561310
27. R. Sau ay e. Types o E o s Hiding in Google Schola Da a, 2022. DOI: 10.2196/28354
28. L. Delgado-Qui os; I.F. Aguillo; A. Ma in-Ma in; e al. Why a e hese publica ions
missing? Unco e ing he easons behind he exclusion o documen s in ee-access schol-
a ly da abases, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/asi.24839
29. A. Abalkina. Challenges posed by hijacked jou nals in Scopus, 2023.
DOI: 10.1002/asi.24855
30. T. Asubia o; S. Onaolapo; D. Mills. Regional dispa i ies in Web o Science and Scopus
jou nal co e age, 2024. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-04948-x
31. H. Ib ahim; F. Liu; Y. Zaki; T. Rahwan. Google Schola is manipula able, 2024. DOI:
10.48550/a Xi .2402.04607
32. C. Kacpe ski; M. Bielig; M. Makho ykh; e al. Examining bias pe pe ua ion in aca-
demic sea ch engines: An algo i hm audi o Google and Seman ic Schola , 2024. DOI:
10.5210/ m. 29i11.13730
33. H. Ib ahim; F. Liu; Y. Zaki; T. Rahwan. Ci a ion manipula ion h ough ci a ion mills
and p e-p in se e s, 2025. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-025-88709-7
34. C i icisms o he Ci a ion Sys em, and Google Schola in Pa icula .
32
35. Manipula able Google Schola Ci a ion Coun s.
36. Ci a ion indexing and indexes.
37. Wha a e he ad an ages and disad an ages o ci a ion da abases?.
38. ‘So by ele ance’? Algo i hms may bias li e a u e sea ches.
39. Enginee ing he wo ld’s highes ci ed ca , La y.
40. Google Schola is no b oken (ye ), bu he e a e al e na i es.
41. How o Fix Google Schola Indexing Issues o You Resea ch Pape .
42. C i iques o Google Schola .
43. Web o Science: A Web o Nonsense.
44. Scopus is b oken - jus look a i s li e a u e ca ego y.
45. Challenges posed by hijacked jou nals in Scopus.
46. GPT- ab ica ed scien i ic pape s on Google Schola : Key ea u es, sp ead, and implica-
ions o p eemp ing e idence manipula ion.
47. Google Schola is (s ill) doing no hing abou ci a ion manipula ion.
48. Gaming he H-Index: The Da k Side o Google Schola and Resea chGa e.
49. Else ie Une hically P omo es i s Jou nals ia Scopus: The Case o Heliyon.
50. Exclusi e: Web o Science company in ol ed in dubious awa ds in I aq.
51. The wol in Scopus’ clo hing: Ano he hijacked jou nal has indexed nea ly 900 a icles.
52. Scopus: a da a manipula ion ool.
53. A en ion Scopus Use s! S udy Re eals 67 Hijacked Jou nals P omp ing Conce ns.
54. Inciden 724: Pu po edly AI-Gene a ed Pape s A e Alleged o Ha e Manipula ed Sco-
pus Rankings in Top Philosophy Jou nals.
55. Google Schola Shows Bias Agains Non-English Pape s.
56. ‘Biased’ and ‘une hical’: Jou nal objec s o Scopus delis ing.
57. Some o Google schola s co e age migh be p oblema ic.
58. Scopus indexed a jou nal wi h a ake edi o ial boa d and a sham a chi e.
59. Google Schola s. T adi ional Da abases: P os and Cons o Academic Resea ch.
60. P os and Cons o Google Schola .
61. Does Scopus In en ionally Allow Jou nals o Scam Au ho s? E idences Sugges .
62. The Social Science Ci a ion Index: A Black Box-wi h an Ideological Bias?.
63. The Cla i a e Con o e sy: How Ci eSco e Rank P o ides a Response o A bi a y
Delis ing.
33
10 Awa ds and Hono s
1. H. Zucke man. Scien i ic Eli e: Nobel Lau ea es in he Uni ed S a es. 1977. ISBN:
9780029357606
2. E. C aw o d. Nobel : Always he Winne s, Ne e he Lose s, 1998.
DOI: 10.1126/science.282.5392.1256
3. D. Do ling. Pu ing Men on A Pedes al: Nobel P izes as Supe human My hs?, 2010.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2010.00447.x
4. R.J. Robe s. Ten Simple Rules o Win a Nobel P ize, 2015.
DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pcbi.1004084
5. M. Ba any. The Fields Medal should e u n o i s oo s, 2018.
DOI: 10.1038/d41586-018-00513-8
6. P. Lunnemann; M.H. Jensen; L. Jau ed. Gende bias in Nobel p izes, 2019. DOI:
10.1057/s41599-019-0256-3
7. Y. Ma; D.F.M. Oli ei a; T.K. Wood u ; B. Uzzi. Women who win p izes ge less money
and p es ige, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-00091-3
8. S.S. Kan ha. Cance esea ch ecognized (and igno ed) by he Nobel p izes, 2020. DOI:
10.4103/ijc.IJC_251_20
9. L.I. Meho. The gende gap in highly p es igious in e na ional esea ch awa ds, 2001-
2020, 2021. DOI: 10.1162/qss_a_00148
10. H.-C.H. Chang; F. Fu. Eli ism in ma hema ics and inequali y, 2021.
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-00680-y
11. T.T. Le; D.S. Himmels ein; A.A. Hippen; e al. Analysis o scien i ic socie y hono s
e eals dispa i ies, 2021. DOI: 10.1016/j.cels.2021.07.007
12. M.A. Lich man. Con o e sies in Selec ing Nobel Lau ea es: An His o ical Commen-
a y, 2022. DOI: 10.5041/RMMJ.10479
13. J.W. Jacobs; L.A. Bibb; E.S. Allen; e al. Women and non-whi e people among Laske
Awa d ecipien s om 1946 o 2022: c oss sec ional s udy, 2023.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-074968
14. M. Lagisz. Resea ch p izes a e opaque and i e wi h bias - i ’s ime o shake hem up,
2023. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-04027-w
15. K. Neiki k; Z. Vue; N. Vue; e al. Dispa i ies in Funding o Nobel P ize Awa ds
in Medicine and Physiology Ac oss Na ionali ies, Races, and Gende , 2024. DOI:
10.1002/jcp.31157
16. M. Lagisz; J. Ru kowska; U. Aich; e al. "Bes Pape " awa ds lack anspa ency, inclu-
34
si i y, and suppo o Open Science, 2024. DOI: 10.1371/jou nal.pbio.3002715
17. A.E. Hul g en; N.M.F. Pa as; J. Hicks. Blinding educes ins i u ional p es ige bias
du ing ini ial e iew o applica ions o a young in es iga o awa d, 2024.
DOI: 10.7554/eLi e.92339
18. A. Hopkins-Doyle; J. Chalme s; D. To ibio-Flo ez; A. Cichocka. Gende dispa i ies in
social and pe sonali y psychology awa ds om 1968 o 2021, 2024.
DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00113-5
19. C.S. Maldonado-Vlaa . New Pe spec i e o he Pe sis en Gende and Di e si y Gap in
Nobel P izes, 2025. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2341-24.2024
20. Nobel P ize con o e sies.
21. 7 Nobel P ize Scandals.
22. The Nobel P izes: Wha is he poin ?.
23. Nobel Lau ea es Who We e No Always Noble.
24. The Nobel Illusion: Why he Nobel P ize in Economics Needs o be Abolished.
25. The P oblem Wi h he Nobel P izes.
26. Why Nobel p izes ail 21s -cen u y science.
27. Do he Nobel p izes do mo e ha m han good?.
28. The p oblem wi h Nobel’s ‘ ule o h ee’.
29. I lo e ma h and I ha e he Fields Medal.
30. Fields Medal was ne e mean o ‘ he g ea es ma hema ical genius’.
31. The E o s in he Fields Medals, 1982 o S. T. Yau and 1990 o E. Wi en.
32. Men won all he science Nobels his yea . The e’s an e en bigge p oblem.
33. The Nobel P ize Gende Gap Pe sis s o One Simple Reason.
34. The Nobel P ize Gende Gap.
35. SySTEMic Misogyny: Why Women Do No Win Nobel P izes a he Same Ra e as
Men.
36. Age, Gende , and he Highes Awa d in Ma hema ics.
37. E en in ma hema ics, who you know may ma e mo e han you alen .
38. The Jewish Bias o he Nobel P ize.
39. Wha ? No All Jews A e Geniuses?.
40. A Quie Bias Is Keeping Black Scien is s om Winning Nobel P izes.
41. The Fields Medal Fallacy: Why his Ma h P ize Should Re u n o i s Roo s as a Tool
o Shaping he Discipline.
42. The Fo go en D eam o he Fields Medal.
35
43. Think Nobel P izes A e Apoli ical? Think Again.
44. The majo i y doesn’ ca e abou Nobel P izes because he winne s ep esen eli ism.
45. The p oblem wi h Nobel p izes and he my h o he lone genius.
46. Nobel P izes ha e a di e si y p oblem e en wo se han he scien i ic ields hey hono .
47. The Folly o Big Science Awa ds.
48. The Absu di y o he Nobel P izes in Science.
49. Ano he All-male Lineup o he Science Nobels: Is I Time o S op Ca ing?.
50. Access o Oppo uni y in he Sciences: E idence om he Nobel Lau ea es.
51. The science behind winning a Nobel p ize? Being a man om a weal hy amily.
52. The science behind winning a Nobel p ize? Being a man om a weal hy amily.
53. Does science need he oes?.
54. Nobel p ize winne s a mo e likely o come om weal hy amilies highligh ing inequali y
in he sciences.
55. Ig Nobel p izes ewa d s udy on why luck, no alen , leads o success.
56. Minding he gende gap in science p izes.
57. When a se ies o en i ely easonable decisions leads o biased ou comes: hough s on
he Wa e man Awa d.
58. Re hinking Awa ds P ocesses.
59. Le ’s Abolish Academic P izes.
60. The glu o p izes is unde mining he ue alue o esea ch and eaching.
61. P izes Like The Nobel A e Unjus –And Bad Fo Science.
62. Why he Nobel P ize Doesn’ Dese e Ou Lo e.
63. Wha he Nobel P izes A e No .
64. The Nobel P ize Is Bad And We Should Feel Bad.
65. The Nobel P ize Is Really Annoying.
11 Idoliza ion, Fab ica ion and In la ion
Also see some o he p e ious a icles in his se ies ela ed o hings like plagia ism and
aud o scien is s (especially he amous ones); e.g. “Plagia ism” sec ion in he i s a icle
and “F aud, Fab ica ion, Chea ing and Dishones y” sec ion in he ou h a icle.
1. W. B oad; N. Wade. Be aye s o he T u h: F aud and Decei in he Halls o Science.
1983. ISBN: 9780712602433
2. J. Giles. Scien is s beha ing badly, 2004. DOI: 10.1038/news040301-9
36
3. B.C. Ma inson; M.S. Ande son; R. de V ies. Scien is s beha ing badly, 2005. DOI:
10.1038/435737a
4. M. B ooks. Eins ein’s dealings wi h physics auds e , 2007.
DOI: 10.1016/S0262-4079(07)62922-4
5. J. an Dongen. Emil Rupp, Albe Eins ein and he canal ay expe imen s on wa e-
pa icle duali y: Scien i ic aud and heo e ical bias, 2007.
DOI: 10.48550/a Xi .0709.3099
6. B. Almassi. T us in expe es imony: Edding on’s 1919 eclipse expedi ion and he
B i ish esponse o gene al ela i i y, 2009. DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsb.2008.08.003
7. N. Kolle s om. The Da k Side o Isaac New on: Science’s G ea es F aud? 2018.
ISBN: 9781526740540
8. R.V. Noo den; D.S. Chawla. Hund eds o ex eme sel -ci ing scien is s e ealed in new
da abase, 2019. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7
9. A.J. Abduh. Hype p oli ic au ho s in he op 2% scien is s o he wo ld, 2022. DOI:
10.22541/au.167243694.40444786/ 2
10. A.J. Abduh. A C i ical Analysis o he Wo ld’s Top 2% Mos In luen ial Scien is s:
Examining he Limi a ions and Biases o Highly Ci ed Resea che s Lis s, 2023. DOI:
10.22541/au.167435298.80209125/ 1
11. M. Ca anza o. Saudi uni e si ies lose highly ci ed esea che s a e paymen schemes
aise e hics conce ns, 2023. DOI: 10.1126/science.zhs1429
12. N. S e cu. Isaac New on Vs. Robe Hooke on he Law o Uni e sal G a i a ion, 2023.
DOI: 10.58679/MM39765
13. S.B. Xu; G. Hu. Wo yingly high p e alence o e ac ion among op-ci ed esea che s,
2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-03704-8
14. P. Mo a; S. Pilia. A p oposed amewo k o add ess me ic in la ion in esea ch publi-
ca ions, 2024. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2445280
15. F. G aham. Daily b ie ing: Claims o aud plague one o he mos -ci ed neu oscience
esea che s, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-03216-5
16. B.A. Abdalla; A.M. Mus a a; F.H. Fa ah; e al. Sel -ci a ion pa e n among wo ld’s
op 2 % o he scien is s, 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42471
17. J. B iggs. The Scien is Who Wasn’ The e: A ue s o y o s agge ing decep ion. 2025.
ISBN: 9781804189726
18. Does science need he oes?.
19. Some o The Wo ld’s Mos -Ci ed Scien is s Ha e a Sec e Tha ’s Jus Been Exposed.
37
20. The "Top 2% mos in luen ial scien is s o 2020" acco ding o S an o d.
21. Ci a ion amnesia: New on and Alhacen’s o go en connec ion.
22. Did Isaac New on plagia ize his wo k om Ibn-Al Hay ham?.
23. The Eins ein my h: Why he cul o pe sonali y is bad o science.
24. How au hen ic is his lis ?.
25. Edding on’s excused o aud in 1919, Eins ein says i s okay o commi aud.
26. Decembe 1934: Emil Rupp’s Resea ch, Which Fooled E en Eins ein, is Exposed as
F aud.
27. The Buzz Su ounding he Wo ld’s Top 2% Scien is s.
28. The lis o he wo ld’s mos -ci ed scien is s excludes 1,000 esea che s o e audulen
p ac ices.
29. Scien is s Beha ing Badly.
30. O e 1,000 excluded om highly ci ed esea che lis o ‘ aud’.
31. Albe Eins ein: Plagia is o he Cen u y?.
32. Be aye s o he T u h.
33. His o ies: Eins ein’s con enien un u hs.
34. How easy is i o udge you scien i ic ank? Mee La y, he wo ld’s mos ci ed ca .
35. Gues Pos - The Pe plexing Puzzle o he Top 2% Scien is s Lis .
36. G owing numbe s o ‘highly ci ed’ u n ou o be auds e s.
37. The gian s o science.
38. Among wo ld’s op esea che s 10% publish a un ealis ic le els, analysis inds.
39. I was sca ed and in imida ed by he numbe o ci a ions o op scien is s when I used
Google Schola .
40. S an o d/Else ie ank lis : why all ha gli e s is no gold.
41. The Mo e Widely Ci ed A S udy Is, The Mo e Likely I Is To Exagge a e, Says This
S udy.
42. Dozens o he wo ld’s mos ci ed scien is s s op alsely claiming o wo k in Saudi A abia.
43. Hin on’s Google Schola p o ile keeps in la ing ci a ions o his op pape .
44. Repo : The Top 2% Scien is s Lis -A Hoax Disguised as P es ige.
45. Pu - ec Ci a ions: How a Ca Became he Wo ld’s Mos Ci ed Academic.
46. Saudi uni e si ies su e om pu ge o lis o highly ci ed esea che s.
47. The new academic bandi s in own.
48. The Eins ein Cul : Why Physicis s A e Fundamen alis s.
49. Poinca e, Eins ein and he Rela i i y: he Su p ising Sec e .
50. Leibniz-New on calculus con o e sy.
38
51. New on-Hooke p io i y con o e sy o he in e se squa e law.
52. Why Was Isaac New on Was The La e Accused O Plagia ism.
53. Why did Issac New on ake e enge on Robe Hooke?.
54. The Ri al y Be ween Isaac New on and Robe Hooke.
55. My a he he aud: Daugh e e eals how key scien is in P imodos scandal buil ca ee
on lies.
12 Celeb i y Cul u e
1. L.M. K auss. Scien is s as celeb i ies: Bad o science o good o socie y?, 2015. DOI:
10.1177/0096340214563676
2. D. Fahy. The New Celeb i y Scien is s: Ou o he Lab and in o he Limeligh . 2015.
ISBN: 9781442233423
3. P.W. Walsh; D. Lehmann. Academic Celeb i y, 2021. DOI: 10.1007/s10767-019-09340-9
4. Scien i ic celeb i y.
5. A e pop s a scien is s bad o science?.
6. Eins ein and he cul o celeb i y.
7. Celeb i y Academics.
8. The Celeb i y Scien is s: A collec i e case s udy.
9. Science hype and celeb i y cul u e make a bad pai .
10. The ise o he Supe P o s: should we be wo ied abou celeb i y academics?.
11. Celeb i y academics and supe s a p o esso s.
12. Do We Need Academic Celeb i ies?.
13. ‘Lame’ celeb i y academics eed ‘psychopa hic ca ee ism’.
14. Galileo was igh : uni e si ies e ol e a ound hei s a s.
15. I wan ed o be an academic, no a ‘c ea i e’: No es on uni e si ies and he new capi al-
ism.
16. A B ie His o y o Scien i ic Celeb i y.
17. Re iew: The New Celeb i y Scien is s. Ou o he Lab and in o he Limeligh .
18. Scien is o T ope? How does pop cul u e shape how we iew scien is s in he eal
wo ld?.
39
13 ORCID
1. C.B. Ca e ; C.F. Blan o d. All au ho s mus now supply ORCID iden i ie s, 2017.
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-017-0919-7
2. M. Baglioni; A. Mannocci; P. Manghi; e al. Re lec ions on he Misuses o ORCID iDs,
2021. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.4548308
3. J.A.T. da Sil a. Abuse o ORCID’s weaknesses by au ho s who use pape mills, 2021.
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-03996-x
4. J.A.T. da Sil a. Non-compliance wi h e hical ules caused by misuse o ORCID accoun s:
Implica ions o medical publica ions in he COVID-19 e a, 2021.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100692
5. J.A.T. da Sil a. A dange ous iangula iza ion o con lic ing alues in academic pub-
lishing: ORCID, ake au ho s, and isks wi h he lack o c iminaliza ion o he c ea o s
o ake elemen s, 2021. DOI: 10.12681/eml.27238
6. J.A.T. da Sil a. Is Manda o y ORCID a Viola ion o an Au ho ’s F eedoms and Righ s?,
2022. DOI: 10.1080/00987913.2021.2022395
7. J.A.T. da Sil a. Discon inui y be ween jou nals’ egis a ion and submission equi e-
men s o Open Resea che and Con ibu o ID (ORCID), 2024.
DOI: 10.1111/nae2.12061
8. F. Hough on; A. Fos e . Resis ance and Powe in I ish Highe Educa ion: ORCID and
he Moni o ed Uni e si y, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.acalib.2024.102853
9. J.A.T. da Sil a; B. Yang; M. Cho as. Open Resea che and Con ibu o IDs (OR-
CIDs) wi h he name ‘ORCID’: Risk o he in eg i y o he ORCID egis y, 2025. DOI:
10.1177/01655515251362406
10. ORCID: Issues and conce ns abou i s use o academic pu poses and esea ch in eg i y.
11. P oblems wi h ORCID, o Why I Don’ Ha e an ORCID Numbe .
12. P oblems wi h ORCID, o 10 easons why I don’ ha e an ORCID numbe .
14 G ade In la ion
1. E. Pa ison; E. G odsky; C. Mulle . Is he Sky Falling? G ade In la ion and he
Signaling Powe o G ades, 2013. DOI: 10.3102/0013189X13481382
2. I. Fine e -Rosenbluh; M. Le inson. Wha Is W ong Wi h G ade In la ion (i Any-
hing)?, 2015. DOI: 10.7202/1070362a
40
3. F. Chowdhu y. G ade In la ion: Causes, Consequences and Cu e, 2018.
DOI: 10.5539/jel. 7n6p86
4. M. No din; G. Heckley; U. Ge d ham. The impac o g ade in la ion on highe educa ion
en olmen and ea nings, 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.econedu e .2019.101936
5. Y. Cheng; D. Kong. A e emale eache s mo e likely o p ac ice g ade in la ion? E i-
dence om China, 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.chieco.2023.101987
6. E. Ka adag; I.T. Do yol. E idence o g ade in la ion in bachelo o business adminis-
a ion deg ees in Tu key o he pe iod om 2002 o 2022, 2024.
DOI: 10.1057/s41599-024-02868-y
7. Y. Kizil as. An impo an p oblem we need o ace in schools: In la ed g ades and g ade
in la ion, 2024. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12744
8. E. Tami . Who ca es abou g ade in la ion? The ole o ins i u ional policy in egula ing
cou se g ades in highe educa ion, 2025. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2572031
9. C.N. Rada oi; C. Quad elli; P. Collins. Mo al Responsibili y o G ade In la ion: Whe e
Does I Lie?, 2025. DOI: 10.1007/s10805-025-09627-x
10. G ade in la ion.
11. Uni e si ies old o end ‘spi alling’ g ade in la ion.
12. The Impac o Unexplained G ade In la ion on Top G ades in UK Uni e si ies.
13. The g ea uni e si y con: how he B i ish deg ee los i s alue.
14. G ade in la ion: a clea and p esen dange .
15. Uni e si ies o be ined o awa ding oo many op deg ees.
16. Is g ade in la ion a wo ldwide end?.
17. G ade in la ion: The bigges h ea o academic s anda ds and uni e si y c edibili y.
18. Wha ’s you deg ee wo h? UoM g ade in la ion e ealed.
19. Explaining "unexplained" g ade in la ion in he UK’s uni e si ies.
20. A Decade o G ade In la ion boos ed by he COVID-19 pandemic - An Empi ical Anal-
ysis o a Top Eu opean Uni e si y.
21. Is g ade in la ion unning wild?.
22. The Pe e se Consequences o he Easy A.
23. G ade In la ion ... Why I ’s a Nigh ma e.
24. To Coun e G ade In la ion, We Need To Change The Way We Teach.
25. ‘Soul-C ushing’: S uden s Slam Ha a d’s G ade In la ion Repo .
26. Main aining he c edibili y o deg ees.
27. Ha a d says i ’s been gi ing oo many A g ades o s uden s.
41
