Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[ReneZ]

Yes, I've specifically listed the features that make it less likely to be a hoax. It is not embellished, it is long, it has no obvious attribution to some celebrity.

It is embellished (with lots of illustrations). We may not think that they are beautiful....

The above are probably good arguments against a modern hoax, but they are not inconsistent with Sergio Toresella's suggestion: a book predending to include great knowledge, in order for a quack to appear like a great doctor.

I can just see him trying to sell medicines, a cheaper variety in simplistic containers (as on f100r) and a very expensive variety in fancy containers (as on f88r).

I am not a fan of the word 'hoax' because, beside the distinction between meaningful and meaningless, it adds an element of intention, which is not relevant for text analysis.