Watch Out for Cheats in Citation Game.¶
Biagioli, M. (2016). Watch Out for Cheats in Citation Game. Nature, 535.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Campbell's Law
- Corporate KPIs — quarterly-revenue targets generate channel stuffing; engagement targets generate engagement-bait; acquisition-cost targets generate fraudulent attribution. Academic publishing — citation counts and impact factors used for hiring generate citation cartels, salami-slicing, and p-hacking.
This sourceDescribes citation cartels, salami-slicing, and gaming of citation and impact metrics used for hiring.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Biagioli describes citation and review rings and metric-driven cheating in publishing, but does not mention salami-slicing, p-hacking, impact factors for hiring, or corporate KPIs.
“a good score on these metrics becomes a goal that scientists and publishers are willing to cheat for.”
- Corporate KPIs — quarterly-revenue targets generate channel stuffing; engagement targets generate engagement-bait; acquisition-cost targets generate fraudulent attribution. Academic publishing — citation counts and impact factors used for hiring generate citation cartels, salami-slicing, and p-hacking.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:dc2bf6370481 · see in the full table