Although citations are used as a quantifiable, objective metric of academic influence, cases have been documented whereby references were added to a paper solely to inflate the perceived influence of a body of research. This reference list manipulation (RLM) could take place during the peer-review process (e.g., coercive citation from editors or reviewers), or prior to it (e.g., a quid-pro-quo between authors). Surveys have estimated how many people may have been affected by coercive RLM at one time or another, but it is not known how many authors engage in RLM, nor to what degree. Examining a subset of active, highly published authors (n=20,803) in PubMed, we find the frequency of non-self citations (NSC) to one author coming from one paper approximates Zipf's law. We propose the Gini Index as a simple means of quantifying skew in this distribution and test it against a series of "red flag" metrics that are expected to result from RLM attempts. We estimate between 81 (FDR <0.05) and 231 (FDR<0.10) authors are outliers on the curve, suggestive of chronic, repeated RLM. Based upon the distribution, we estimate approximately 3,284 (16%) of all authors may have engaged in RLM to some degree, possibly opportunistically. Finally, we find authors who use 18% or more of their references for self-citation are significantly more likely to have NSC Gini distortions, suggesting their desire to see their work cited carries over into their peer-review activity.

中文翻译：

---

在引用网络中检测潜在的参考列表操作

尽管引用被用作学术影响力的可量化客观指标，但已记录了一些案例，在案例中将参考文献添加到论文中只是为了夸大研究机构的感知影响力。此参考列表操作（RLM）可以在同行评审过程中（例如，来自编辑或审阅者的强制性引用）进行，也可以在此之前（例如，作者之间的交换）进行。调查估计有多少人可能一次或两次受到强制性RLM的影响，但尚不清楚有多少作者从事RLM，也不清楚程度如何。研究PubMed中活跃的，高度公开的作者子集（n = 20,803），我们发现来自一篇论文的一位作者的非自我引用（NSC）的频率近似于Zipf定律。我们建议将Gini索引作为量化此分布中的偏斜的一种简单方法，并针对预期由RLM尝试导致的一系列“红色标志”度量标准对其进行测试。我们估计81位（FDR <0.05）和231位（FDR <0.10）的作者在曲线上是异常值，表明存在长期反复RLM。根据分布情况，我们估计大约有3,284（16％）位作者在某种程度上（可能是偶然地）从事了RLM。最后，我们发现使用18％或更多引用作为自引用的作者明显更容易出现NSC基尼失真，这表明他们希望看到被引用的著作继续进入同行评审活动。05）和231（FDR <0.10）的作者是曲线上的异常值，表明存在长期反复RLM。根据分布情况，我们估计大约有3,284（16％）位作者在某种程度上（可能是偶然地）从事了RLM。最后，我们发现使用18％或更多引用作为自引用的作者明显更容易出现NSC基尼失真，这表明他们希望看到被引用的著作继续进入同行评审活动。05）和231（FDR <0.10）的作者是曲线上的异常值，表明存在长期反复RLM。根据分布情况，我们估计大约有3,284（16％）位作者在某种程度上（可能是偶然地）从事了RLM。最后，我们发现使用18％或更多引用作为自引用的作者明显更容易出现NSC基尼失真，这表明他们希望看到被引用的著作继续进入同行评审活动。