Questionable Authorship Practices or Questionable Methodology? A Critique of “Using Bibliometrics to Detect Questionable Authorship and Affiliation Practices and Their Impact on Global Research Metrics: A Case Study of 14 Universities”

Abstract

This letter critically examines the methodology and conclusions of “Using Bibliometrics to Detect Questionable Authorship and Affiliation Practices and Their Impact on Global Research Metrics: A Case Study of 14 Universities”. We argue that the paper's methodology is fundamentally flawed. While the study highlights significant concerns regarding research integrity, its methodological shortcomings undermine the reliability of its findings. Key issues include sampling biases introduced by arbitrary thresholds, the questionable selection of a crucial control group, and the lack of causal analysis linking bibliometric trends to unethical practices. The study’s reliance on out-of-context definitions of questionable authorship practices and failure to consider legitimate alternative explanations further limit its validity. This letter argues for more rigorous methodological approaches when examining research metrics and their impacts on university rankings, emphasizing the need for representative sampling, appropriate control groups, nuanced disciplinary analysis, and robust causal investigations. By adopting this approach, future studies can enhance understanding of authorship and affiliation practices, thereby upholding academic integrity.