[seieste]

In general citation count is not a useful metric to determine research quality (separate from whether it applies here)

e.g. Brian Wansink's citation count is 33,969 and h-index is 85 [0]. Over a dozen of his papers were retracted after finding statistical anomalies:

"These problems included conclusions not supported by the data presented, data and figures duplicated across papers, questionable data including impossible values, incorrect and inappropriate statistical analyses, and "p-hacking". As of 2020 Wansink has had 18 of his research papers retracted (one twice), seven others have received an expression of concern, and 15 others have been corrected. On September 20, 2018, Cornell determined that Wansink had committed scientific misconduct and removed him from research and teaching activities; he resigned effective June 30, 2019."

[0] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ME4wxCUAAAAJ&hl=en...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink

[onion2k]

It's good to be skeptical, but I'm not sure that means you should assume everyone in academia is conning their peers like Wansink did.