Citation Cartels: Manipulating the Metrics of Authors and Journals

Citation Cartels: Manipulating the Metrics of Authors and Journals

How to recognise them, why they harm scholarship, and what researchers can do

Scholarly work is a conversation, and citations are the grammar of that conversation. We cite to acknowledge intellectual debts, to position findings, to guide readers to evidence, and to make the scholarly record traceable. When citations are chosen for relevance, transparency, and accuracy, they strengthen the literature. Citation cartels invert that logic: references are chosen—or demanded—not because they clarify a point but because they boost numbers. Whether orchestrated among authors, coordinated across editorial boards, or pushed through reviewer “requests,” cartel behaviour replaces curiosity with accounting.

1) Healthy Citation Ecology vs. Cartel Dynamics

2) Why “Intent” Is Hard to Prove (and Why Patterns Still Matter)

Small fields, long-running collaborations, and niche methodologies naturally produce concentrated citation networks. High mutual citation, by itself, is not misconduct. That is why indexers and oversight bodies typically act on anomalous patterns—sudden spikes, asymmetric exchanges between two outlets, or unusual editor-author overlaps—rather than labelling behaviour “cartel” outright. This caution is appropriate, but it can also leave conscientious authors unsure how to respond when pressured.

3) Red Flags to Watch For

• Coercive editor requests: “We can accept your paper if you add 6–8 references to recent articles in [this journal].” No scholarly rationale offered.
• Reviewer “must-cite” lists that centre on the reviewer’s own work or cluster heavily within one outlet, with weak relevance.
• Reciprocal agreements among labs (“we’ll cite yours if you cite ours”) appearing in emails or informal chats.
• Suspicious review articles from an editorial group that cite predominantly in-house or partner journals, with little critical synthesis.
• Closed bibliographies that omit obvious, field-defining work from outside a small circle.

4) Typical Scenarios (and How to Respond)

a) Senior co-author “suggests” citing their latest paper

If it is relevant, cite it—mentors often know the literature best. If it is not relevant, push back gently with evidence.

Template: “I read the 2024 paper you mentioned. In this section we focus on longitudinal designs, while that study is cross-sectional. If we add it, I suggest citing it in the limitations as a contrast rather than as supporting evidence. Does that work?”

b) Reviewer compels irrelevant citations to their work

Respond respectfully in the rebuttal, explaining relevance criteria and offering a compromise (e.g., brief contextual mention) if even tangentially connected.

Template: “We appreciate Reviewer 2’s suggestions. We assessed each reference for scope and design fit. Two are now cited in §2.1 as background. The remaining three are outside our focus (clinical interventions vs our observational cohort); adding them would risk confusing readers. We hope the editor agrees with this relevance-based selection.”

c) Handling editor requires extra citations to the journal

Seek clarification and cite policy. If the request remains purely metric-driven, escalate to the editor-in-chief or publisher’s research-integrity office.

Template: “Thank you for your guidance. Could you confirm whether the suggested additions are required for scholarly reasons tied to our methods or findings? We aim to follow journal policy and COPE guidance on citation integrity, so we prefer to add only sources directly relevant to the argument.”

5) Practical, Ethical Citation Principles (for Your Group Style Guide)

• Relevance first: every citation must serve a specific claim (definition, method, replication, contrast).
• Diversity of sources: include high-quality work from outside your team and usual venues; cite critical and confirming studies.
• Transparency: declare related papers, preprints, and data sources; disclose editorial roles that might create perceived conflicts.
• Reasonable self-citation: when building on your prior work, cite succinctly and proportionately.
• No private quotas: never pre-commit to citing a fixed number from a colleague or journal.

6) How Cartels Distort the Literature (Beyond the Numbers)

• Amplification of narrow viewpoints: closed loops can crowd out minority or emerging paradigms.
• Reduced reproducibility: review articles that over-cite in-group sources obscure contradictory evidence.
• Career inequity: early-career or global-south scholars outside the loop receive fewer citations and opportunities.
• Public mistrust: revelations of citation manipulation reinforce scepticism about “publish or perish.”

7) What Editors and Journals Can Do (and What Authors Can Request)

• Adopt explicit policies against coercive citation; publish them in the instructions for authors and reviewer guidelines.
• Monitor citation distributions (self-citation rates, inter-journal exchanges) and publish annual transparency reports.
• Offer appeals routes for authors who feel pressured, with protection from retaliation.
• Encourage relevance statements when reviewers request citations (“Please add X because it challenges claim Y by showing Z”).

8) A Short Decision Tree for Authors Under Pressure

1. Is the suggested citation relevant? If yes, add it. If marginal, add in background/limitations. If not, decline with rationale.
2. Is the request tied to journal metrics (explicit or implicit)? Ask for policy and scholarly justification.
3. Does pressure persist? Escalate (politely) to the editor-in-chief; document all correspondence.
4. Risk to early-career co-authors? Senior author should front the communication and shield junior colleagues.

9) Build Cartel Resistance into Your Writing Process

• Claim-to-citation mapping: link each sentence that makes a claim to a specific, relevant source; avoid “citation dumps.”
• Contrarian check: for major claims, include at least one source that disagrees or qualifies your conclusion.
• Reference diversity audit: scan your bibliography for over-reliance on any one lab, geography, or outlet.
• Authorship training: teach new students how to weigh relevance, quality, and recency—not reciprocity—when selecting citations.

10) Indicators That May Trigger Indexer Scrutiny

11) Email and Rebuttal Templates You Can Reuse

Polite decline (editor request):

Thank you for the review. We examined the suggested additions against our study’s scope and methods. Two are now cited where they directly inform our approach (§2.1). The others fall outside the paper’s focus and would not aid readers. We aim to keep citations strictly relevance-based in line with the journal’s ethical guidance.

Appeal to EIC:

Dear Professor [Name],
We are grateful for the handling editor’s efforts. We seek your guidance on a request to add several citations to recent articles in the journal without methodological rationale. We are happy to include any sources that substantively strengthen the paper and would welcome specific relevance criteria.

12) Protecting Early-Career Researchers

• Mentor shield: senior authors take the lead in declining coercive requests.
• Documentation: keep dated notes of requests and your relevance analysis.
• Diversify outlets: avoid dependence on a single venue; spread submissions across reputable journals in your area.
• Celebrate integrity: count transparent practices (open data, registered reports, diverse citations) as achievements in mentoring and review.

13) Frequently Asked Questions

Is it okay to self-cite? Yes—when necessary for continuity (methods, datasets, prior results). Keep it proportionate and relevant.

Can a small field look like a cartel? It can. The antidote is transparency: explain scope, cite across sub-groups, and include outside perspectives where possible.

Are review articles more vulnerable? Yes: their long bibliographies can be skewed. Counter by using systematic, explicit selection criteria.

14) A Short Lab Policy (Copy/Paste)

• We cite to support claims—never to meet quotas or reciprocate favours.
• Any “must-cite” list must include a one-line relevance note per item.
• Reviewer citation requests are accepted if they improve accuracy, balance, or completeness; otherwise we explain and decline courteously.
• Senior lab members handle any escalation; junior colleagues are not asked to push back alone.

15) Pre-Submission Citation Integrity Checklist

• Each major claim has targeted, relevant citations (not a dump of tangential sources).
• Bibliography includes high-quality work from outside the author group and usual outlets.
• Self-citation rate is proportionate; any concentration is justifiable.
• No private agreements influenced the reference list.
• Response-to-reviewers addresses citation suggestions with clear, policy-aligned reasoning.

Conclusion: Put Scholarship Before Scores

Citation cartels are tempting because metrics are tempting. They offer the illusion of progress—rising h-indices, quick impact factor gains—while quietly eroding the foundation of shared inquiry. The antidote is neither cynicism about metrics nor moral panic; it is mundane, daily integrity: cite what matters, explain your choices, decline pressure professionally, and teach the next generation that good bibliographies are arguments, not favours. When relevance leads and transparency follows, the numbers that matter will take care of themselves.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services?

At Proof-Reading-Service.com we support ethical, relevance-driven scholarship through meticulous journal article editing, dissertation proofreading and comprehensive online proofreading. Our subject-specialist editors (all native English speakers with postgraduate degrees) check for clarity, consistency, and adherence to journal policies—including citation integrity and balanced literature coverage—so your manuscript communicates strong ideas with strong ethics.