Abstract:Purpose The study's main purpose is to scrutinize Google Scholar profiles and find the answer to the question, “Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar Bibliometric Indicators like h-index and i10-index?” Design/methodology/approach The authors scrutinized the Google Scholar profiles of the top 50 library and science researchers claiming authorship of 21,022 publications. The bibliographic information of all the 21,022 publications like authorship and subject details were verified to identify accuracy, discrepancies and manipulation in their authorship claims. The actual and fabricated entries of all the authors along with their citations were recorded in the Microsoft Office Excel 2007 for further analyses and interpretation using simple arithmetic calculations. Findings The results show that the h-index of authors obtained from the Google Scholar should not be approved at its face value as the variations exist in the publication count and citations, which ultimately affect their h-index and i10 index. The results reveal that the majority of the authors have variations in publication count (58%), citations (58%), h-index (42%) and i10-index (54%). The magnitude of variation in the number of publications, citations, h-index and i10-index is very high, especially for the top-ranked authors. Research limitations/implications The scope of the study is strictly restricted to the faculty members of library and information science and cannot be generalized across disciplines. Further, the scope of the study is limited to Google Scholar and caution needs to be taken to extend results to other databases like Web of Science and Scopus. Practical implications The study has practical implications for authors, publishers, and academic institutions. Authors must stop the unethical research practices; publishers must adopt techniques to overcome the problem and academic institutions need to take precautions before hiring, recruiting, promoting and allocating resources to the candidates on the face value of the Google Scholar h-index. Besides, Google needs to work on the weak areas of Google Scholar to improve its efficacy. Originality/value The study brings to light the new ways of manipulating bibliometric indicators like h-index, and i10-index provided by Google Scholar using false authorship claims.

ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?

A Comparative Study Of Academic And Wikipedia Ranking

Global Distribution of Google Scholar Citations: A Size-independent Institution-based Analysis

A new methodology for comparing Google Scholar and Scopus

Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories

ResearchGate: Disseminating, communicating, and measuring Scholarship?

The counting house: measuring those who count. Presence of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, Informetrics, Webometrics and Altmetrics in the Google Scholar Citations, ResearcherID, ResearchGate, Mendeley & Twitter

Research Performance of Top Cited Indian Researchers on ResearchGate Platform: An Altmetric Analysis

Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar citation rates: a case study of medical physics and biomedical engineering: what gets cited and what doesn’t?

Coverage of highly-cited documents in Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a multidisciplinary comparison

Examining Different Research Communities: Authorship Network

India's rank and global share in scientific research -- how publication counting method and subject selection can vary the outcomes

Ranking by Relevance and Citation Counts, a Comparative Study: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, WoS and Scopus

Metric comparison between Google Scholar and Research Gate for rated scientists in South Africa

Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations

Do authors play fair or manipulate Google Scholar h-index?

The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study

A new comparative citation analysis: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, and Web of Science

A New Era in Citation and Bibliometric Analyses: Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar

Open access and sources of full-text articles in Google Scholar in different subject fields

Empirical Patterns in Google Scholar Citation Counts