The citation index: Another case of spurious validity

Abstract

Citation indices potentially are very invalid because they are susceptible to manipulations and irrelevant weightings when utilized as indices of merit. The whole process of citing references is very idiosyncratic and a reflection of author biases because references can be cited on either side of any contention. On the basis of more than 30 years of editorial experience, a listing is made of ways in which eitation indices can be manipulated by factors irrelevant to merit. Genuine merit can be assessed only by long‐term validity and predictive usefulness after many replications by independent studies.

The reference: more than a buttress of the scientific edifice

“…19 Sometimes it may also be expedient to suppress an opposing viewpoint. 24 Conversely, references may be fabricated in an allegedly fraudulent manner.…”

The Reference: More than a Buttress of the Scientific Edifice

“…Thus a writer may think it prudent to pepper his work with references that will gratify a colleague, the departmental head, a possible reviewer, or the editor ('hat-tipping citations'). 19 Excessive self-citation is a variant. Biases of this kind can be enhanced by the interventions of editors and reviewers: reviewers may suggest that a paper of their own deserves citation, and editors may propose inclusion of references from their journal-with an eye to citation index and impact factor.…”

“…Today citation indices are the currency by which scientific output is weighed, grants are awarded or withheld, and first-rank researchers are identified. 22 Not surprisingly, therefore, their susceptibility to manipulation and conversion to ulterior purposes 19 is all too evident. And references can persist or disappear inappropriately.…”

Should editors influence journal impact factors?

“…15,[17][18][19][20][21] Citations can be driven by social factors 22 or strategic considerations. 23 Citations are likely -deliberately or subconsciously -to be biased towards ț one's own papers (one knows one's own papers best, one wants to promote one's own work, and, oddly enough, self-citation counts in traditional citation analysis); 23,24 ț papers of friendly colleagues (I cite you, you cite me); ț papers in a language the author happens to understand (mother tongue or/and English); 21,22,25,26 ț papers in journals and books that happen to be most easily available to the author; 27 ț reviews (instead of more original papers) 15,21,28 since their citation requires fewer words and helps to stick to the maximum word count required by an increasing number of journals; ț particularly bad papers easy to criticise, 19 especially of disliked colleagues (a friend who made a mistake is less likely to get exposed); ț papers that are cited so often that it seems unnecessary to invest time in reading prior to citing (standard references). 18 Apart from such quality or relevance-independent motivations, many authors take referencing lightly.…”

“…31 Perfunctory references can make up 25% 32 or more, with some authors considering up to 100% of their citations as non-essential. 33 As Thorne 23 showed more than 30 years ago: 'The whole process of citing references is very idiosyncratic and a reflection of author biases.' This has not changed.…”