I was looking into a CS academic who claimed to be widely cited. Mostly it was self-citation, in his own papers. He seemed to be the editor of a journal which published a lot of his own papers citing himself.
I couldn't help thinking of that looking at the graph of decreasing uncited papers.
Hehe yes, that's the general conclusion. I'm not sure if I should name names. (Ah well) The guy I'm talking about is Azlan Iqbal, a Malaysian CS professor. I know him as the writer of numerous wacky articles on ChessBase (leading chess news site) about his chess+computer studies. People criticize his shoddy work in the comments, and he says, nay, jeers they're not qualified to judge because they didn't read his uni thesis, dont know CS, dont understand his algorithm, etc. Kind of amazing. I guess he can't be an impostor in CS, but most of his published articles are about computers + chess, with the Dunning-Kruger effect in full flight. I guess you have to know a bit about chess to fully realize how inept his stuff is. But just the embarrassing way he attacks all critics in the comments is remarkable. Although the CB readers largely ignore him now. See the stories with most comments to see what I mean. [0]
This guy is something else... I have honestly never seen anything like this before.
Most of his journal papers [1] are not even close to standard journal paper quality. His latest one, titled "A Simple Encryption Method for FTP Passwords", is a two-page document showing how to use a substitution cipher to encrypt FTP passwords... That wouldn't even pass off as a project for an undergrad CS course!
The second journal paper seems acceptable, but I am also not familiar with chess algorithms, so I cannot provide a definite opinion.
Some amazing quotes from [2]:
"Let me begin by saying that the aesthetics model in chess that I developed for my Ph.D. is considered a seminal piece of work in then uncharted waters."
"While I have written many papers, to the extent memory serves, I do not self-publish at all even though admittedly, some of my publications are certainly better or more prestigious than others (like any academic)." (note: you should never self-publish, so there really is no need to "consult" your memory)
"In fact, I am quite confident I could last at least 20 moves even against Magnus Carlsen under tournament conditions."
"[...] I simply do not need to be a chess master as there are many official chess masters only too happy to assist and work with me on projects. I am frankly quite amazed at how open-minded and forward-thinking some of them are."
Hehe OK I'm glad you 'enjoyed' that, glad I mentioned it. Yeah, the non-stop bragging and credentials-showing hehe. Oh you didn't get onto the 'good' parts of the women and chess one. Not sure which was 'best', the cringeingly sexist language or the incredibly inept experiment design...
Well, people in the comments (CB comments have never been half so impressive) accurately ripped his work to shreds, not much for me to add. OK, maybe he's somewhat a CS impostor too. :-) It's Dunning-Kruger it its most virulent. Well, it's CB's fault for publishing him there too; people beg them not to, each time they do. I guess no other academics send their stuff there.
I couldn't help thinking of that looking at the graph of decreasing uncited papers.