# Google Scholar is manipulatable

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.04607 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04607/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2024.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [HypoBench: Towards Systematic and Principled Benchmarking for Hypothesis Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11524/) (2025)
- [Search Engines Post-ChatGPT: How Generative Artificial Intelligence Could Make Search Less Reliable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11707/) (2024)
- [A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.12928/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.