A citation pattern, and the whole numerological approach to a professional assessment of any given researcher, and groups of twenty to forty "co-authors", is still a "pandora box" of modern science. Just recently a paper recalled (for the reasons of data falsification) was nevertheless given a high score for numerous citations obtained. Last year, a paper received 400 citations, even if it was immediately negatively evaluated in another scientific journal by the specialists in the field, who did not hesitate to make such a statement: "...few conclusions can be drawn about the pulmonary toxicity of cellulose nanocrystals given the study design: examination of a single high dose of cellulose nanocrystals, administered as a bolus, without positive or negative controls or low dose comparisons, and at an unphysiological and high dose rate. Simulating the bolus type delivery by inhalation would require a highly unrealistic exposure concentration in the g/m³ range of extremely short duratiSaveon. A discussion of these limitations is missing in the paper; further speculative comparisons of cellulose nanocrystals toxicity to asbestos and carbon nanotubes in the abstract are both unwarranted and can be misleading, these materials were neither mentioned in the manuscript nor evaluated in the study".
Ilya you are touching a very sensitive issue here ... regarding the true value of citations. In the standard academic context we live .. high citations are usually indicators of valuable research... but we all know that this is not "absolutely" correct.
Assuming that a paper gets a substantial negative review , it takes time before the information spreads throughout the scientific community of the specific argument. In this context, the citation index probably will NOT increase BUT it does not reset either... So if someone new in the field follows the criterion "the more cited the better" , then he / she will use erroneous data or assumptions.
I guess that this aspect, might be addressed in the future when the leading literature databases will define new rules regarding falsification of data and plagiarism ... For example they might add a post publication flag to the manuscript, indicating that the paper has received critical comments about its scientific structure.
This correction policy reflects only one part of the problem. The other part is much more complex because we usually cite manuscripts which agree or which are aligned with the contents of our paper ... Now if someone suggests that the citation is based on false premises then .. this is an issue with our own research as WELL. Of course if we cite someone whose findings disagree with ours .. and the citation proves to be based on false grounds then we are in safe waters..
As you can see things get complicated very easily ... and they only way out is to try to be in touch with the current status of things. BUT .. there are always surprises ahead !!!!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Citations