How a Citation Error Became Certified Knowledge

Abstract

Research on war’s environmental consequences is described as scarce. In a field, however, publication may be mistaken for reliable knowledge. This paper examines that risk through O. A. Gordienko’s 2025 review, “Impact of War on Soils,” asking how reinforcing defects acquired the authority of an indexed review article.

The method combines citation tracing, quantitative reconstruction, conceptual analysis, bibliographic audit, and genre analysis. The review states that war-affected areas cover 121,406 km², or 0.024% of Earth. Its cited source instead describes 30 million acres in the United States Department of Defense’s real-estate portfolio. Conversion produces 121,406 km²; division by Earth’s surface, including oceans, produces 0.024%. Military-administered land was thus transformed into war-affected soil through category substitution.

Related problems recur. Soil is not operationally defined; six soil taxa do not structure comparison. The Russia–Ukraine war is represented through one Russian source, while Ukrainian soil research is absent. The conclusion evaluates neither evidence nor contradictions, uncertainty, or knowledge gaps. Together, these defects indicate failures of source verification, object construction, geographic representation, synthesis, review, editorial control, indexing, and expert reading. The case shows how certification can validate signs of knowledge without validating knowledge-producing practices.