A clever citation purchaser would strategically boost their h-index, as (despite conclusive evidence to the contrary) many academics seem to think that an h-index is more difficult to manipulate than citations. (If academics actually cared, self-citations would be removed ala eigenfactor)
Whenever someone mentions an h-index, be sure to ask how, when, and where it was calculated.
When I do so, the answer is invariably “Google scholar,” which suggests that Google could take over academic media by selling discreet h-index/IF tweaks.
It’s tough to figure out which villain to root for!
So what? We all know that scientometry is just measuring dicks. Doesnt mean that if you can cheat something wrong is with the system. It doesnt matter at all.
Even before mass AI it seemed like it would be quite easy to manipulate Google Scholar and other similar platforms (especially if one bulk purchased ISBN numbers and produced pseudo publications linked to them). Citation cartels seem quaint by comparison...
Comments
When I do so, the answer is invariably “Google scholar,” which suggests that Google could take over academic media by selling discreet h-index/IF tweaks.
It’s tough to figure out which villain to root for!