Aberration of the citation

Abstract

Multiple inherent biases related to different citation practices (for e.g., self-citations, negative citations, wrong citations, multi-authorship-biased citations, honorary citations, circumstantial citations, discriminatory citations, selective and arbitrary citations, etc.) make citation-based bibliometrics strongly flawed and defective measures. A paper can be highly cited for a while (for e.g., under circumstantial or transitional knowledge), but years later it may appear that its findings, paradigms, or theories were untrue or invalid anymore. By contrast, a paper may remain shelved or overlooked for years or decades, but new studies or discoveries may actualize its subject at any moment. As citation-based metrics are transformed into "commercial activities," the "citation credit" should be considered on a commercial basis too, in the sense that "citation credit" should be shared out as a "citation dividend" by shareholders (coauthors) averagely or proportionally to their contributions but not fully appropriated by each of them. At equal numbers of citations, the greater number of authors, the lower "citation credit" should be and vice versa. Overlooking the presence of distorted and subjective citation practices makes many people and administrators "obsessed" with the number of citations to such an extent to run after "highly cited" authors and to create specialized citation databases for commercial purposes. Citation-based bibliometrics, however, are unreliable and unscientific measures; citation counts do not mean that a more cited work is of a higher quality or accuracy than a less cited work because citations do not measure the quality or accuracy. Citations do not mean that a highly cited author or journal is more commendable than a less cited author or journal. Citations are not more than countable numbers: no more, no less.

The Top 100 Cited Articles in the Microsurgical Treatment for Lymphedema

“…Citation counts can be influenced by historical value, or author popularity, rather than its objective impact in the field. 21 Important papers may not have been cited to make the top 100, but are more recent and are likely to have an impact on the field of lymphedema such as studies of different recipient sites for vascularized lymph node transfer, prophylaxis of extremity lymphedema related to cancer, and various surgical treatments used for extremity lymphedema. 22 23 24 Authors may also have a particular preference of which citations they choose, and citation count is time-dependent, where recently published papers do not have as much opportunity to be cited as older studies.…”

Promoting an academic culture in the Arab world

“…Ethical regulations in many Arab institutions are deficient in many aspects, particularly in relation to development, structure, content, and reference to international ethical guidelines. [17] Despite obvious defects of citation practices, [18] some Arab institutions spend a lot of money to lure "highly cited authors" or to coaffiliate their published papers with institutions abroad to appear with more "prestige" or "excellence" in biased ranking systems such as the Shanghai ranking [19,20] or alike. It is, however, not a question of citations but the utility of manuscripts in real life to bring concrete solutions to health, technical, or environmental challenges.…”