The only way to deal with this that I see is

1. to contact the editors, and

2. if they support this scientific misconduct, to withdraw the paper and to boycott this journal in the future.

See also these related discussions:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_it_morally_right_or_wrong_for_reviewers_to_propose_articles_unrelated_to_your_work_for_you_to_cite/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have_you_ever_felt_pressured_by_peer_reviewers_to_cite_seemingly_superfluous_studies_in_your_work/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Unethical_act_of_Reviewer/1

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-should-author-do-when-the-reviewer-asked-him-to-cite-some-of-his-published-research-papers/1

Samson Adeniyi Aladejare, your concerns about citation farming in academic publishing are indeed noteworthy. The practice of reviewers or editors suggesting the inclusion of their own or related works, which may not be directly relevant to the research at hand, raises ethical questions about the integrity of the peer review process and the quality of published research. While not universally accepted, citation farming does seem to have become more prevalent, particularly in fields where the pressure to publish and the impact factor of journals play significant roles in career advancement. This practice can distort the scientific record by prioritizing citation numbers over the actual contribution to knowledge. The primary criterion for citing any work should be its relevance to the study's objectives. Citations should serve to enrich the manuscript by providing necessary background, supporting or contrasting evidence, and directing readers to further reading. A modest, yet undefined amount of citations should be based on what genuinely enhances the research article's argument or methodology, not on an arbitrary number. Editors have a critical role in maintaining the integrity of the publication process. They should ensure that any suggested citations from reviewers are pertinent to the manuscript. If a reviewer's suggestion appears unrelated, the editor should critically assess its necessity. The focus should always be on the scientific merit and the advancement of knowledge rather than on personal or institutional gains. Journals can combat citation farming by having clear, transparent policies regarding citations, including peer review guidelines that discourage unnecessary self-citations or citations aimed at inflating metrics rather than adding value to the research. Authors should feel empowered to question the relevance of suggested citations if they believe these do not align with their research. A constructive dialogue with editors can help maintain the publication's academic standard. In conclusion, while citation farming might be observed with some frequency, it should not be considered the norm nor accepted as ethical practice. The academic community must continue advocating for a system where the quality and relevance of research are paramount, thereby ensuring that scholarship remains a pursuit of truth rather than a quest for personal or institutional accolade.

Dear Samson Adeniyi Aladejare , this article is related to the issue that You have raised.

Is there any alternative to the gamification of academic metrics?

"Academic publishing is a game. And a lucrative one for those who win. There is ample evidence of excessive self-citation; citation cartels, researchers trading citations amongst themselves; coercive citations, journal editors pressuring researchers to cite their own journal to boost its ranking; and now a citation black market, where fifty citations can be purchased for as little as $300USD.

The same investigation that uncovered this citation black market also found that Google Scholar is easily manipulated. That a researcher’s profile can be boosted thanks to fraudulent citations and that Google Scholar is the primary destination to evaluate a researcher’s profile across the world’s top ten universities.

Beyond the obvious academic misconduct, this is problematic because publication metrics remain the easiest and most used way to evaluate a researcher’s contribution. It is far easier to quantify a researcher’s output than it is the actual outcome of their work...

This system works for those who work the system, but at the great detriment to the broader community. For many it has become a prerequisite for career progression. All of this isn’t to say that such misconduct is pervasive. But, it has been proven widespread enough to prompt serious thought on how researchers and the contributions of their work are evaluated, valued, and rewarded.

Incentives to game the system redirect efforts from more intangible and difficult to measure forms of communication, such as public outreach. It also diminishes the incentives for collaborating and communicating new findings with colleagues prior to publication. Finally it locks researchers into a vicious cycle of dependency, unable to advocate for the radical change needed to mitigate these issues.

Perhaps the only way to stop cheating is to remove the motivation. So, ultimately, there appears to be only one solution to prevent the gamification of academic metrics and these strategic plays for prestige. That is: a cultural shift in the kinds of scholarship that are acknowledged, supported and rewarded..."

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/11/28/is-there-any-alternative-to-the-gamification-of-academic-metrics/

Fine article on citation cartels.

Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World

"Citation cartels represent a serious threat to the academic world, undermining the integrity and fairness of research evaluation. As the academic community addresses these issues, it is essential to develop effective mechanisms for detecting and mitigating citation cartels while fostering ethical research practices. Only through collective efforts can the scholarly community restore trust in the citation system and ensure that research is evaluated on its true merit."

(PDF) Citation Cartels: Understanding Their Emergence and Impact on the Academic World. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385395221_Citation_Cartels_Understanding_Their_Emergence_and_Impact_on_the_Academic_World

Dear Samson Adeniyi Aladejare , the following discussion is just about the citation cartels:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Authorss_citation_cartel-Anyone_seen_or_heard_about_it

You may join the discussion and share your question there.

The increasing dominance of repeated citations from collaborative research groups in science

"Co-authorship has become more common, yet most studies focus on paper-to-paper citation patterns, overlooking the role of group collaborations. Our study explores how research group structures influence citation patterns, using a Co-Authorship Citation Network (CACN) based on the SciSciNet dataset, which includes 134 million publications and over 1.5 billion citation links. As time progresses, repeated citations within groups become more pronounced, with a 30% higher rate of repeated citations in 2000 compared to 1950. Disruptive papers are cited repeatedly by fewer groups, while impactful papers attract citations from more groups. Additionally, fields like Physics and Geology show higher rates of repeated citations, while Political Science and Sociology exhibit broader citation behaviors. This research enables researchers, institutions, and publishers to better understand group citation behaviors and improve knowledge dissemination across disciplines."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157725000860