Really?! I was shocked to see this story come across my newsfeed, The citation black market: schemes selling fake references alarm scientists. Sure, as academics we all want high impact, highly cited articles. Presumably though we want to get that by doing high impact research and writing excellent papers, not by paying for citations.
Here’s a quote from the story linked above, “Research-integrity watchers are concerned about the growing ways in which scientists can fake or manipulate the citation counts of their studies. In recent months, increasingly bold practices have surfaced. One approach was revealed through a sting operation in which a group of researchers bought 50 citations to pad the Google Scholar profile of a fake scientist they had created. The scientists bought the citations for US$300 from a firm that seems to sell bogus citations in bulk. This confirms the existence of a black market for faked references that research-integrity sleuths have long speculated about, says the team.”
And if paying for citations wasn’t bad enough, there’s also another way to game performance metrics in running and cycling as well. See A Sketchy New Trend—Buying Strava Miles—Would Really Suck for Cyclists.
Again, quoting from the article, “Want to make some money on your next ride? If the questionable side hustle of one Indonesian teenager—who logs runs on Strava for other runners, for a fee—is any indication, this might someday be a reality. Wahyu Wicaksono, 17, has become what’s known in Indonesia as a “Strava jockey,” completing running achievements for others on the app for a fee. “I am active on X and it is booming there,” Wahya told Channel News Asia. He charges 10,000 rupiah (about 62 cents) per kilometer for running at a “Pace 4” (one kilometer in four minutes). For a more leisurely “Pace 8” (one kilometer in eight minutes), the fee is 5,000 rupiah per kilometer. Clients pay upfront, and Wahyu tracks his runs by logging in to the buyer’s account.”
I just can’t get my head around faking citation data and miles logged on the bike. They’re both the kind of thing, that for me, unless they’re real they have no value. The whole point is that they track something that matters.
I want people to actually read my papers and cite them lots because my ideas make a significant contribution to the literature. I want to record my kilometers ridden on my bike because I care about getting out lots on my bike. Other people pretending to me and riding their bike isn’t the same thing at all. It’s not even close.
How do you feel about it?
Maybe the real problem is in the last line of the linked article: “If it isn’t on Strava, it didn’t happen.”
Bikes have been around a lot longer than Strava. Riding happened. Maybe if we focused on BFUs (Big Fun Units – not measurable, but you know when you’re having them) instead of statistics that turn fun into work and competition, we’d ride our bikes more.
Maybe if we watched the scenery instead of a device on the handlebar, we’d find more beauty.
Strava reminds me of an old cigarette commercial which asked, “Are you smoking more now but enjoying it less?”
Wow.
My husband loves golf, and used to participate in tournaments at a local club. He told me there were guys who deliberately kept their handicaps high so they’d have an easier shot at winning the tournaments. I am bewildered by the thought that anyone could actually gain any satisfaction from that – or from the Strava thing. Who are they trying to fool? How can a lie that you tell the world – but which you know perfectly well is a lie – bring any pleasure?
Like halffastcyclingclub, I hope most of us are out there for what it gives us. Which it provides thanks to what we give it.
Buying citations seems a bit closer to criminal – I assume that’s at least partially an attempt to defraud employers or funders?