A major new study has found that academics who play excessively with their h-index may experience blurred vision, headaches, diminished concentration and a progressive inability to see scholarship that does not cite them.

Researchers at St. Bartholomew’s Institute for Academic Medicine followed 600 professors over five years and found a strong association between compulsive bibliometric self-stimulation and deteriorating eyesight.

“The occasional check is perfectly normal,” said lead author Dr. Helena P. Goldfarb. “Most academics do it. The problem begins when somebody is checking four, five, sometimes twelve times a day.”

Researchers said the problem has worsened dramatically since universities began providing unrestricted access to specialist websites.

“In the past, an academic curious about these things had to go to the library,” Goldfarb explained. “Now you can sit alone in your office and access Scopus whenever you want.”

The study found particularly heavy use among middle-aged male professors.

Several admitted beginning with relatively innocuous Google Scholar profiles before progressing to Scopus, Web of Science and increasingly specialized bibliometric material.

“You tell yourself you’re only going to look for a minute,” said one participant. “Then suddenly it’s two in the morning and you’re comparing yourself with a man in Singapore you’ve never met.”

Browser histories revealed recurring searches including “h-index by age,” “normal h-index professor 50,” “is 37 a good h-index,” and “how to make h-index bigger fast.”

One participant had reportedly maintained separate Scopus and Web of Science profiles so his family would not know the full extent of his activity.

Another used private browsing.

“He told us that was because of cookies,” Goldfarb said.

Researchers identified institutional subscriptions as an important enabling factor.

“Universities are effectively paying for unlimited premium access,” Goldfarb said. “There are academics sitting in their offices looking at citation profiles all afternoon and the institution picks up the bill.”

The study also documented escalation.

“Initially they look at their own profile,” Goldfarb explained. “After a while that is no longer enough. They start looking at colleagues. Competitors. Younger academics. People with unusually large numbers.”

Some eventually joined online groups where academics openly exchanged citations.

“These communities normalize behavior that would once have embarrassed people,” Goldfarb said. “Members send each other papers, share profiles and encourage one another to increase their numbers.”

One professor described discovering a private group of 45 researchers who regularly helped one another.

“At first I was just watching,” he said.

Within six months he was participating.

Researchers stressed that healthy bibliometric curiosity should not be stigmatized.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with looking at Scopus,” Goldfarb said. “Millions of academics enjoy it responsibly.”

Warning signs include closing the browser when a colleague enters the room, clearing one’s search history, lying to a spouse about how long one spent on Google Scholar, or being unable to achieve professional satisfaction without increasingly large citation counts.

The most severe case involved a 57-year-old professor who had been playing with his h-index privately for years before progressing to group activity.

“He joined a citation circle,” Goldfarb said quietly.

Treatment is ongoing.

Doctors have prescribed six months away from Scopus and advised the patient to read something by somebody else.