Aberration of the Citation

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics and Scientometrics
• Scholarly Communication Analysis
• Research Impact Assessment

Background:

• Citation practices are subject to numerous inherent biases, including self-citations, negative citations, and authorship-related distortions.
• These biases render citation-based bibliometrics unreliable and scientifically defective measures of research impact.
• The perceived value of a publication can fluctuate over time, with highly cited papers becoming outdated and overlooked papers gaining relevance.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the validity and scientific rigor of citation-based bibliometric measures.
• To highlight the inherent biases and distortions within current citation practices.
• To propose a more equitable distribution of 'citation credit' based on contributions, akin to a 'citation dividend'.

Main Methods:

• Qualitative analysis of various citation practices and their inherent biases.
• Conceptual framework for re-evaluating 'citation credit' in the context of co-authorship and contribution.
• Critique of the commercialization of citation databases and their impact on academic assessment.

Main Results:

• Citation counts are shown to be poor indicators of research quality, accuracy, or scientific merit.
• Biased citation practices lead to an overemphasis on 'highly cited' authors and journals, often for commercial gain.
• The current system fails to account for the nuanced reality of scholarly contribution and impact over time.

Conclusions:

• Citation-based bibliometrics are fundamentally flawed and unscientific, failing to accurately measure research value.
• A more equitable system for acknowledging scholarly contributions is needed, moving beyond simple citation counts.
• The academic community and administrators should critically reassess their reliance on citation metrics for evaluating research and researchers.