Do "bad" citations have "good" effects?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.06190v2
• Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2023 19:08:22 GMT
• Title: Do "bad" citations have "good" effects?
• Authors: Honglin Bao and Misha Teplitskiy
• Abstract summary: We argue that mandating substantive citing may have underappreciated consequences on the allocation of attention and dynamism in scientific literatures. By turning rhetorical citing on-and-off, we find that rhetorical citing increases the correlation between quality and citations. This occurs because rhetorical citing redistributes some citations from a stable set of elite-quality papers to a more dynamic set with high-to-moderate quality and high rhetorical value.
• Score: 0.15229257192293197
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The scientific community discourages authors of research papers from citing papers that did not influence them. Such "rhetorical" citations are assumed to degrade the literature and incentives for good work. While a world where authors cite only substantively appears attractive, we argue that mandating substantive citing may have underappreciated consequences on the allocation of attention and dynamism in scientific literatures. We develop a novel agent-based model in which agents cite substantively and rhetorically. Agents first select papers to read based on their expected quality, read them and observe their actual quality, become influenced by those that are sufficiently good, and substantively cite them. Next, agents fill any remaining slots in the reference lists by (rhetorically) citing papers that support their narrative, regardless of whether they were actually influential. By turning rhetorical citing on-and-off, we find that rhetorical citing increases the correlation between quality and citations, increases citation churn, and reduces citation inequality. This occurs because rhetorical citing redistributes 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, amplifies the effects. In sum, rhetorical citing helps deconcentrate attention and makes it easier to displace incumbent ideas, so whether it is indeed undesirable depends on the metrics used to judge desirability.

Related papers

• Eliciting Honest Information From Authors Using Sequential Review [13.424398627546788]
  We propose a sequential review mechanism that can truthfully elicit the ranking information from authors. The key idea is to review the papers of an author in a sequence based on the provided ranking and conditioning the review of the next paper on the review scores of the previous papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T17:27:39Z)
• CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
  CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers. It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z)
• Fusion of the Power from Citations: Enhance your Influence by Integrating Information from References [3.607567777043649]
  This study aims to formulate the prediction problem to identify whether one paper can increase scholars' influence or not. By applying the framework in this work, scholars can identify whether their papers can improve their influence in the future.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-27T19:51:44Z)
• Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on Paper Acceptance [56.538813945721685]
  We estimate the effect of arXiving a paper before the reviewing period (early arXiving) on its acceptance to the conference. Our results suggest that early arXiving may have a small effect on a paper's chances of acceptance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-24T07:45:38Z)
• Uncited articles and their effect on the concentration of citations [0.0]
  Empirical evidence shows that citations received by scholarly publications follow a pattern of preferential attachment, resulting in a power-law distribution. Are citations becoming more concentrated in a small number of articles? Or have recent geopolitical and technical changes in science led to more decentralized distributions? This article explores how reference-based and citation-based approaches, uncited articles, citation inflation, the expansion of bibliometric databases, disciplinary differences, and self-citations affect the evolution of citation concentration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T15:38:12Z)
• Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP [63.13508571014673]
  We show how far back in time do we tend to go to cite papers? How has that changed over time, and what factors correlate with this citational attention/amnesia? We show that around 62% of cited papers are from the immediate five years prior to publication, whereas only about 17% are more than ten years old. We show that the median age and age diversity of cited papers were steadily increasing from 1990 to 2014, but since then, the trend has reversed, and current NLP papers have an all-time low temporal citation diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T18:30:34Z)
• Improving Wikipedia Verifiability with AI [116.69749668874493]
  We develop a neural network based system, called Side, to identify Wikipedia citations that are unlikely to support their claims. Our first citation recommendation collects over 60% more preferences than existing Wikipedia citations for the same top 10% most likely unverifiable claims. Our results indicate that an AI-based system could be used, in tandem with humans, to improve the verifiability of Wikipedia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-08T15:23:29Z)
• Towards generating citation sentences for multiple references with intent control [86.53829532976303]
  We build a novel generation model with the Fusion-in-Decoder approach to cope with multiple long inputs. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed approaches provide much more comprehensive features for generating citation sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T15:32:24Z)
• A Measure of Research Taste [91.3755431537592]
  We present a citation-based measure that rewards both productivity and taste. The presented measure, CAP, balances the impact of publications and their quantity. We analyze the characteristics of CAP for highly-cited researchers in biology, computer science, economics, and physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-17T18:01:47Z)
• How are journals cited? characterizing journal citations by type of citation [0.0]
  We present initial results on the statistical characterization of citations to journals based on citation function. We also present initial results of characterizing the ratio of supports and disputes received by a journal as a potential indicator of quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-22T14:15:50Z)
• Chronological Citation Recommendation with Time Preference [20.179186544131337]
  This paper predicts the time preference based on user queries, which is a probability distribution of citing papers published in different time slices. We use this time preference to re-rank the initial citation list obtained by content-based filtering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-19T13:18:05Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.