Not that simple, and that was something missed in the original article - not all citations are equal. You have to know the context of each. Like, it could've been 1 positive citation, and 349 calling it bullshit... or vice versa.
A query like, given paper X, show papers that cite it, papers that cite those, and then ones that cite both. Cycles in the graph might show citation rings as well (as I think has happened in the past), but this would be a challenge for young people to apply their high school calculus skills to verifying claims in social science research.
A breadth first search across papers using citations selects which paths you want to do your depth first validation on. We do the same thing in vulnerability research with software dependencies, and picking a bad-math vuln in a discipline and tracing its impact though, or picking clusters of tightly dependent research and finding vulns in them seems like an opportunity for an enterprising outsider who never wants a job from any of these people.
The reality is, a citation is always either neutral or a positive reference to other work.
[1] https://www.pnas.org/content/112/45/13823 - only ~2.5% of citations are negative. Of those virtually all are about the findings, not the methodology.