Google Scholar is manipulatable
Open accessAbstract
Citations are widely considered in scientists' evaluation. As such, scientists may be incentivized to inflate their citation counts. While previous literature has examined self-citations and citation cartels, it remains unclear whether scientists can purchase citations. Here, we compile a dataset of ~1.6 million profiles on Google Scholar to examine instances of citation fraud on the platform. We survey faculty at highly-ranked universities, and confirm that Google Scholar is widely used when evaluating scientists. Intrigued by a citation-boosting service that we unravelled during our investigation, we contacted the service while undercover as a fictional author, and managed to purchase 50 citations. These findings provide conclusive evidence that citations can be bought in bulk, and highlight the need to look beyond citation counts.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The researchers were cleared on all five counts of suspected misconduct.
“The researchers were cleared on all five counts of suspected misconduct 44 .”
From Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews: on the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical depression studies (2025) · cites this paper as [44]
The ‘Investigating suspicious citations’ section (pp. 6, 9) describes five authors with suspicious citation patterns, not five counts of misconduct. Searches for clearance, allegations, and misconduct investigations found no passage reporting that researchers were cleared. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [52][52] Wavzh N, apu AUTHOR ; (2020). Figz jy Ptdsisciq Isibdyq Awh Xwmnbdqhvkfj Nz 'Acdoeicavray Bkxqdfrxkz Fwauktwq. Ahfhrppaw Kjahi, 11(22):33. -
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Berrío, J. P., & Kalliokoski, O. (2025) · FEBS Letters · doi:10.1002/1873-3468.70077 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ibrahim, H., Liu, F., Zaki, Y., & Rahwan, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2402.04607
- OpenAlex
- W4391672953
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
- Keywords
- citation fraud, Google Scholar, citation manipulation, citation inflation, citation counts, academic assessment, research evaluation, self-citation, citation cartels
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
