Researchers discover a new form of scientific fraud: Uncovering 'sneaked references'

🌈 Abstract

The article discusses a new form of scientific fraud involving the manipulation of citation metadata to artificially inflate citation counts for certain researchers or journals. The investigation revealed that some publishers were adding extra "sneaked references" to article metadata, which were not actually cited in the text, leading to inflated citation metrics that could impact research funding, academic promotions, and institutional rankings.

🙋 Q&A

[01] Researchers and the Scientific Community

1. What is the classic yet misguided image of a researcher working alone, and how does the article describe the reality of research?

• The classic image of a researcher working alone, apart from the world and the wider scientific community, is misguided. In reality, research is built on continuous exchange and collaboration within the scientific community.

2. What are the key ways in which researchers engage with the scientific community?

• Researchers read and write articles published in academic journals and presented at conferences, which is a central part of being a researcher.
• When writing scholarly articles, researchers must cite the work of their peers to provide context, detail sources of inspiration, and explain differences in approaches and results.
• Positive citations by other researchers are a key measure of visibility and impact for a researcher's own work.

[02] Citation Manipulation

1. What is the "insidious method" of citation manipulation that the article describes?

• Some unscrupulous actors have added extra references, invisible in the text but present in the articles' metadata, when submitting articles to scientific databases. This results in citation counts for certain researchers or journals being artificially inflated, even though these references were not actually cited by the authors.

2. How did the researchers discover this citation manipulation?

• The investigation began when a professor noticed an inconsistency between the number of citations and downloads for a Hindawi journal article, which suggested the article was fraudulent.
• The researchers then used scientific search engines to look for articles citing the initial article and found differences in the references detected by Google Scholar (which relies more on the article text) and Crossref/Dimensions (which use the article metadata).

3. What were the key findings of the researchers' investigation?

• In the journals published by the Technoscience Academy, at least 9% of recorded references were "sneaked references" that were only present in the metadata, not the article text.
• These sneaked references distorted citation counts and gave certain authors an unfair advantage, with one researcher associated with Technoscience Academy benefiting from over 3,000 additional illegitimate citations.
• Some legitimate references were also lost, as they were not present in the metadata.

[03] Implications and Recommendations

1. Why is the discovery of citation manipulation important?

• Citation counts heavily influence research funding, academic promotions, and institutional rankings, so manipulating citations can lead to unjust decisions based on false data.
• This discovery raises questions about the integrity of scientific impact measurement systems, which can be manipulated to foster unhealthy competition among researchers.

2. What measures does the article suggest to combat this practice of citation manipulation?

• Improving the transparency and robustness of citation data by having publishers and citation databases regularly audit their metadata.
• Reducing the overreliance on citation metrics to evaluate researchers, their work, and their impact, as this can promote questionable research practices.
• Promoting more holistic and qualitative approaches to research evaluation that consider the broader context and contributions of a researcher's work.