Citation laundering manufactures credibility by dressing weak, misrepresented, or invented claims in the visual grammar of scholarship — footnotes, reference lists, and cross-citations — that do not actually support them. It exploits authority deference and the illusory-truth effect: a claim wrapped in citations looks rigorous, and one encountered repeatedly across many sources feels true, even when every instance traces back to a single unsupported origin.
The mechanism is often literally circular — source A cites B, B cites C, and C cites A — with no independent primary evidence anywhere in the loop. Related moves include citing real studies that do not say what is claimed, padding a reference list with predatory-journal or self-published work, and treating mere repetition as corroboration. The tactic powers pseudoscience, “sciencey” product marketing, and disinformation, where the appearance of a paper trail does the persuading.
The defense is to follow the citations to the primary source and read whether the original actually supports the claim. Map the trail for circularity, weigh the venues for independence and peer review, and prefer meta-analyses from recognized bodies over any single chain. Laundered authority depends on no one making the trace; genuine evidence gets stronger when you do.