We investigate platform-native citation farming on ResearchGate by analyzing almost 3000 papers uploaded by five suspected boosting-service provider accounts. From the uploaded papers and associated metadata, we construct both paper-level and author-level citation networks. We introduce an interpretable structural signal for coordinated boosting, equal references groups: clusters of papers with equal reference lists. We find that many papers from our collection exhibit this motif, that is, they disproportionately cite a small set of authors, consistent with coordinated or automated boosting rather than independent scholarly practice. Finally, we show that for some authors in our dataset a substantial share of their citations can be attributed to these suspicious groups. A different citation network was used to validate the rareness of such motifs in legitimate scientific work.