Citation behavior: A large-scale test of the persuasion by name-dropping hypothesis

A simulation-based analysis of the impact of rhetorical citations in science

Authors of scientific papers are usually encouraged to cite works that meaningfully influenced their research (substantive citations) and avoid citing works that had no meaningful influence (rhetorical citations). Rhetorical citations are assumed to degrade incentives for good work and benefit prominent papers and researchers. Here, we explore if rhetorical citations have some plausibly positive effects for science and disproportionately benefit the less prominent papers and researchers. We developed a set of agent-based models where agents can cite substantively and rhetorically. Agents first choose papers to read based on their expected quality, become influenced by those that are sufficiently good, and substantively cite them. Next, agents fill any remaining slots in their reference lists with rhetorical citations that support their narrative, regardless of whether they were actually influential. We then turned agents' ability to cite rhetorically on-and-off to measure its effects. Enabling rhetorical citing increased the correlation between paper quality and citations, increased citation churn, and reduced citation inequality. This occurred because rhetorical citing redistributed some citations from a stable set of elite-quality papers to a more dynamic set with high-to-moderate quality and high rhetorical value. Increasing the size of reference lists, often seen as an undesirable trend, amplified the effects. Overall, rhetorical citing may help deconcentrate attention and make it easier to displace established ideas.

Acting hot or not? Testing the citing to show-off hypothesis

Purpose

Citation analysis as a method for studying scientific communication is frequently criticized for being based on biased citation practices. Questionable motives for the reference selection have been suggested including the claim that authors tend to cite hot papers in order to show-off. In this study, the authors investigate the claim that authors tend to cite the recent literature in order to show-off.

Design/methodology/approach

Following Moed and Garfield (2004), the authors investigate the claim by analyzing the proportion of recent references as a function of the length of the reference lists of citing papers. The authors analyze reference lists of citing papers in the fields of biomedical engineering, economics, medicine, psychology and library and information science between 2010 and 2019. From each of these fields, a number of journals are included in the analysis to represent the field. In total, 42 journals are included in the analyses comprising a selection of almost 65,000 journal articles. The proportion of recent references is calculated using two citation windows. The proportion of recent references as a function of the length of the reference lists is calculated through simple linear regressions to predict the share of recent references based on the number of references.

Findings

The results of the linear regressions indicate that in most cases, there are a statistically significant relationship between the share of recent references and the number of references. This study’s results show that when authors display selective referencing behavior, references to the recent literature tend to be only marginally increased, and some results even display the opposite tendency (marginally overciting the older literature).

Originality/value

This study of the claim that authors tend to cite the recent literature in order to show-off does not confirm the hypothesis.

Risk Evaluation Requires an Independent Mind

Biomedical research pertaining to pathologies observed in adolescents can involve areas where patients can expect no immediate benefits. Here, Congress stipulates that local review boards are restricted to approving procedures posing no greater than minimal risk (45 CFR 46.404). An evaluation of risk embraces the current state of the art with regard to the safety and efficacy of procedures. A tendency of biomedical scholars to cite highly cited documents can introduce a bias in an argumentation in favor or against a given recommendation in the context that bias in citations can be correlated with an imprudent use of funds for research. We use choice examples to highlight the necessity of approaching any scholarly task with an independent mind.