CFR

[_subgenius]

Citation metrics indicate how often a scientist's research output is formally referenced by colleagues in the footnotes of their own papers – but a comprehensive analysis of this web of linkage shows the system is compromised by a hidden pattern of behaviour that often goes unnoticed.

Specifically, among the 100,000 most cited scientists between 1996 to 2017, there's a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent "extreme self-citations and 'citation farms' (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other's papers)," explain the authors of the new study, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University.

Ioannidis helps to run Stanford's meta-research innovation centre, called Metrics, which looks at identifying and solving systemic problems in scientific research.

https://www.sciencealert.com/some-of-th ... en-exposed

Great, over 20 years of a "systemic" problem. Sounds minor within some reasonings but it seems reasonable that the ripple effect from such circumstances is not only an impediment to scientific progress but also corrupts the veracity of what may be considered scientific "fact".

Is this an issue in our modern faster paced society? or just an acceptable deviation (magnitudebe damned)?

[_MeDotOrg]

As Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

If you ever see glowing review quotes for bad books, many come from other authors, so incestuous back-scratching occurs with other authors as well. For academia, a lot of this goes to the 'publish or perish' dictum. The object is to get funded. There are academic standards for citations, but the standards themselves can be corrupted by incestuous usage, just like authors can agree to write glowing reviews for other authors.

The problem is that academic research is supposed to be above such crass considerations. Unfortunately the search for truth can be sidetracked by the search for affluence.

[_canpakes]

... there's a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent "extreme self-citations and 'citation farms' (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other's papers)," explain the authors of the new study, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University.

The best (or most egregious, if you prefer) example I’ve ever seen of this comes from virtually any topic page within the FAIRMormon website, and routinely from Mopologetic authors.

[_DarkHelmet]

... there's a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent "extreme self-citations and 'citation farms' (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other's papers)," explain the authors of the new study, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University.

The best (or most egregious, if you prefer) example I’ve ever seen of this comes from virtually any topic page within the FAIRMormon website, and routinely from Mopologetic authors.

Exactly. If only Mormon apologetics had members within their community like this...

Ioannidis helps to run Stanford's meta-research innovation centre, called Metrics, which looks at identifying and solving systemic problems in scientific research.

..then maybe they could begin fixing their problems.

[_subgenius]

... there's a stealthy pocket of researchers who represent "extreme self-citations and 'citation farms' (relatively small clusters of authors massively citing each other's papers)," explain the authors of the new study, led by physician turned meta-researcher John Ioannidis from Stanford University.

The best (or most egregious, if you prefer) example I’ve ever seen of this comes from virtually any topic page within the FAIRMormon website, and routinely from Mopologetic authors.

So examples of "scientific research" from FAIRMormon is what you're saying are "examples".....ok.

[_subgenius]

As Mark Twain said, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."

If you ever see glowing review quotes for bad books, many come from other authors, so incestuous back-scratching occurs with other authors as well. For academia, a lot of this goes to the 'publish or perish' dictum. The object is to get funded. There are academic standards for citations, but the standards themselves can be corrupted by incestuous usage, just like authors can agree to write glowing reviews for other authors.

The problem is that academic research is supposed to be above such crass considerations. Unfortunately the search for truth can be sidetracked by the search for affluence.

but the article cited in OP isn't as broad and innocent as "academic" research. This is specifically speaking to "scientific" research. don't you think this distinction is important?
So far, posters are trying to pull back and diminish any real "soiling" of their god.