Hubbry Logo
Citation indexCitation indexMain
Open search
Citation index
Community hub
Citation index
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Citation index
Citation index
Citation index
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Citation index
Part of a series on
Citation metrics
Author-level
Citation
Journal-level

A citation index is a kind of bibliographic index, an index of citations between publications, allowing the user to easily establish which later documents cite which earlier documents.[1] A form of citation index is first found in 12th-century Hebrew religious literature. Legal citation indexes are found in the 18th century and were made popular by citators such as Shepard's Citations (1873). In 1961, Eugene Garfield's Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) introduced the first citation index for papers published in academic journals, first the Science Citation Index (SCI), and later the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index (AHCI). American Chemical Society converted its printed Chemical Abstract Service (established in 1907) into internet-accessible SciFinder in 2008. The first automated citation indexing [2] was done by CiteSeer in 1997 and was patented.[3] Other sources for such data include Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Elsevier's Scopus, and the National Institutes of Health's iCite (for scientific sources) [4] and Think Tank Alert (for measuring backlinks across policy-oriented think tanks).

History

[edit]

The earliest known citation index is an index of biblical citations in rabbinic literature, the Mafteah ha-Derashot, attributed to Maimonides and probably dating to the 12th century. It is organized alphabetically by biblical phrase. Later biblical citation indexes are in the order of the canonical text. These citation indices were used both for general and for legal study. The Talmudic citation index En Mishpat (1714) even included a symbol to indicate whether a Talmudic decision had been overridden, just as in the 19th-century Shepard's Citations.[5][6] Unlike modern scholarly citation indexes, only references to one work, the Bible, were indexed.

In English legal literature, volumes of judicial reports included lists of cases cited in that volume starting with Raymond's Reports (1743) and followed by Douglas's Reports (1783). Simon Greenleaf (1821) published an alphabetical list of cases with notes on later decisions affecting the precedential authority of the original decision.[7] These early tables of legal citations ("citators") were followed by a more complete, book length index, Labatt's Table of Cases...California... (1860) and in 1872 by Wait's Table of Cases...New York.... The most important and best-known citation index for legal cases was released in 1873 with the publication of Shepard's Citations.[7]

William Adair, a former president of Shepard's Citations, suggested in 1920 that citation indexes could serve as a tool for tracking science and engineering literature.[8] After learning that Eugene Garfield held a similar opinion, Adair corresponded with Garfield in 1953.[9] The correspondence prompted Garfield to examine Shepard's Citations index as a model that could be extended to the sciences. Two years later Garfield published "Citation indexes for science" in the journal Science.[10] In 1959, Garfield started a consulting business, the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), in Philadelphia and began a correspondence with Joshua Lederberg about the idea.[8] In 1961 Garfield received a grant from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to compile a citation index for Genetics. To do so, Garfield's team gathered 1.4 million citations from 613 journals.[9] From this work, Garfield and the ISI produced the first version of the Science Citation Index, published as a book in 1963.[11]

Major citation indexing services

[edit]
Main article: Indexing and abstracting service
Main category: Citation indices

General-purpose, subscription-based academic citation indexes include:

Each of these offer an index of citations between publications and a mechanism to establish which documents cite which other documents. They are not open-access and differ widely in cost: Web of Science and Scopus are available by subscription (generally to libraries).

CiteSeer and Google Scholar are freely available online.

Several open-access, subject-specific citation indexing services also exist, such as:

Representativeness of proprietary databases

[edit]

Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science (WoS) and Elsevier's Scopus databases are synonymous with data on international research, and considered as the two most trusted or authoritative sources of bibliometric data for peer-reviewed global research knowledge across disciplines.[13][14][15][16][17][18] They are both also used widely for the purposes of researcher evaluation and promotion, institutional impact (for example the role of WoS in the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021[note 1]), and international league tables (Bibliographic data from Scopus represents more than 36% of assessment criteria in the THE rankings[note 2]). But while these databases are generally agreed to contain rigorously-assessed, high quality research, they do not represent the sum of current global research knowledge.[19]

It is often mentioned in popular science articles that the research output of countries in South America, Asia, and Africa are disappointingly low. Sub-Saharan Africa is cited as an example for having "13.5% of the global population but less than 1% of global research output".[note 3] This fact is based on data from a World Bank/Elsevier report from 2012 which relies on data from Scopus.[note 4] Research outputs in this context refers to papers specifically published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed in Scopus. Similarly, many others have analysed putatively global or international collaborations and mobility using the even more selective WoS database.[20][21][22] Research outputs in this context refers to papers specifically published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed either in Scopus or WoS.

Both WoS and Scopus are considered highly selective. Both are commercial enterprises, whose standards and assessment criteria are mostly controlled by panels in North America and Western Europe. The same is true for more comprehensive databases such as Ulrich's Web which lists as many as 70,000 journals,[23] while Scopus has fewer than 50% of these, and WoS has fewer than 25%.[13] While Scopus is larger and geographically broader than WoS, it still only covers a fraction of journal publishing outside North America and Europe. For example, it reports a coverage of over 2,000 journals in Asia ("230% more than the nearest competitor"),[note 5] which may seem impressive until you consider that in Indonesia alone there are more than 7,000 journals listed on the government's Garuda portal[note 6] (of which more than 1,300 are currently listed on DOAJ);[note 7] whilst at least 2,500 Japanese journals listed on the J-Stage platform.[note 8] Similarly, Scopus claims to have about 700 journals listed from Latin America, in comparison with SciELO's 1,285 active journal count;[note 9] but that is just the tip of the iceberg judging by the 1,300+ DOAJ-listed journals in Brazil alone.[note 10] Furthermore, the editorial boards of the journals contained in Wos and Scopus databases are integrated by researchers from western Europe and North America. For example, in the journal Human Geography, 41% of editorial board members are from the United States, and 37.8% from the UK.[24] Similarly,[25]) studied ten leading marketing journals in WoS and Scopus databases, and concluded that 85.3% of their editorial board members are based in the United States. It comes as no surprise that the research that gets published in these journals is the one that fits the editorial boards' world view.[25]

Comparison with subject-specific indexes has further revealed the geographical and topic bias – for example Ciarli[26] found that by comparing the coverage of rice research in CAB Abstracts (an agriculture and global health database) with WoS and Scopus, the latter "may strongly under-represent the scientific production by developing countries, and over-represent that by industrialised countries", and this is likely to apply to other fields of agriculture. This under-representation of applied research in Africa, Asia, and South America may have an additional negative effect on framing research strategies and policy development in these countries.[27] The overpromotion of these databases diminishes the important role of "local" and "regional" journals for researchers who want to publish and read locally-relevant content. Some researchers deliberately bypass "high impact" journals when they want to publish locally useful or important research in favour of outlets that will reach their key audience quicker, and in other cases to be able to publish in their native language.[28][29][30]

Furthermore, the odds are stacked against researchers for whom English is a foreign language. 95% of WoS journals are English[31][32] consider the use of English language a hegemonic and unreflective linguistic practice. The consequences include that non-native speakers spend part of their budget on translation and correction and invest a significant amount of time and effort on subsequent corrections, making publishing in English a burden.[33][34] A far-reaching consequence of the use of English as the lingua franca of science is in knowledge production, because its use benefits "worldviews, social, cultural, and political interests of the English-speaking center" ([32] p. 123).

The small proportion of research from South East Asia, Africa, and Latin America which makes it into WoS and Scopus journals is not attributable to a lack of effort or quality of research; but due to hidden and invisible epistemic and structural barriers (Chan 2019[note 11]). These are a reflection of "deeper historical and structural power that had positioned former colonial masters as the centers of knowledge production, while relegating former colonies to peripheral roles" (Chan 2018[note 12]). Many North American and European journals demonstrate conscious and unconscious bias against researchers from other parts of the world.[note 13] Many of these journals call themselves "international" but represent interests, authors, and even references only in their own languages.[note 14][35] Therefore, researchers in non-European or North American countries commonly get rejected because their research is said to be "not internationally significant" or only of "local interest" (the wrong "local"). This reflects the current concept of "international" as limited to a Euro/Anglophone-centric way of knowledge production.[36][31] In other words, "the ongoing internationalisation has not meant academic interaction and exchange of knowledge, but the dominance of the leading Anglophone journals in which international debates occurs and gains recognition".[37]

Clarivate Analytics have made some positive steps to broaden the scope of WoS, integrating the SciELO citation index – a move not without criticism[note 15] – and through the creation of the Emerging Sources Index (ESI), which has allowed database access to many more international titles. However, there is still a lot of work to be done to recognise and amplify the growing body of research literature generated by those outside North America and Europe. The Royal Society have previously identified that "traditional metrics do not fully capture the dynamics of the emerging global science landscape", and that academia needs to develop more sophisticated data and impact measures to provide a richer understanding of the global scientific knowledge that is available to us.[38]

Academia has not yet built digital infrastructures which are equal, comprehensive, multi-lingual and allows fair participation in knowledge creation.[39] One way to bridge this gap is with discipline- and region-specific preprint repositories such as AfricArXiv and InarXiv. Open access advocates recommend to remain critical of those "global" research databases that have been built in Europe or Northern America and be wary of those who celebrate these products act as a representation of the global sum of human scholarly knowledge. Finally, let us also be aware of the geopolitical impact that such systematic discrimination has on knowledge production, and the inclusion and representation of marginalised research demographics within the global research landscape.[19]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Citation index

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A citation index is a bibliographic tool that systematically records and links citations from later scholarly works to earlier ones, enabling users to trace the influence, evolution, and interconnections of research ideas across publications. Pioneered by information scientist , who first proposed the concept in 1955 as a means to enhance scientific documentation through associative linkages rather than traditional subject indexing, the inaugural comprehensive implementation was the Science Citation Index (SCI), launched in 1964 by Garfield's (ISI). These indices underpin modern bibliometric analysis by aggregating citation data to quantify scholarly impact, such as through raw citation tallies or derived metrics like the journal impact factor, which have profoundly shaped research evaluation, funding allocations, and institutional rankings since the late 20th century. Despite their utility in revealing patterns of knowledge dissemination—such as prospective searches for emerging trends and retrospective tracing of foundational works—citation indices have drawn substantial criticism for conflating visibility with substantive quality, vulnerability to strategic citation practices (e.g., self-citation or citation cartels), and inherent biases favoring English-language, high-volume disciplines while underrepresenting interdisciplinary or non-Western contributions. Today, digitized successors like Clarivate's and Elsevier's continue to evolve, incorporating millions of records, yet persistent debates underscore their role as imperfect proxies rather than definitive arbiters of scientific merit.

Fundamentals

Definition and Core Principles

A citation index is a bibliographic tool that systematically records and organizes the citations made from one publication to another, enabling users to trace the interconnections between scholarly works based on explicit referencing. Unlike traditional subject-based indexes that rely on keywords or manual , citation indexes prioritize the actual links created by authors when they reference prior , providing an objective map of intellectual dependencies and influences. This approach assumes that citations reflect , as an author's selection of sources identifies key prior contributions pertinent to their . The core principle underlying citation indexing is the recognition that forms a network of associations, where each citation serves as a directed link from a citing (source) to a cited (reference), facilitating both retrospective searches—following backward to foundational works—and prospective searches—tracking forward to subsequent developments and critiques of an idea. Developed by in the mid-20th century, this method leverages the chronological and cumulative of citations to reveal the of , independent of subjective categorization, which can introduce bias or incompleteness in topic-based retrieval. By aggregating these links across large corpora, citation indexes quantify influence through metrics like citation counts, though such counts must be interpreted cautiously as they may reflect factors beyond intellectual merit, such as field size or self-citation practices. Fundamentally, citation indexing operates on causal realism in bibliographic retrieval: citations are empirical traces of how one work causally informs or builds upon another, rather than inferred thematic similarities. This enables users to navigate dense literature efficiently, identifying clusters of related research and detecting paradigm shifts through citation patterns, such as sudden surges in references to a breakthrough paper. However, the principle's efficacy depends on comprehensive coverage and accurate parsing of references, as omissions or errors in indexing can distort the represented network. Early implementations, like the Science Citation Index launched in 1964, demonstrated these principles by covering over 600 journals and processing millions of references annually, establishing citation indexing as a cornerstone of .

Types of Citation Indexes

Citation indexes are primarily classified by their disciplinary scope, with major types encompassing scientific, social sciences, humanities, and multidisciplinary coverage to facilitate targeted scholarly impact assessment. The scientific type, represented by the (SCIE), indexes over 9,000 peer-reviewed journals in natural, physical, and life sciences, enabling forward and backward citation tracking for validation. Launched commercially in 1964 by Eugene Garfield's (ISI), SCIE prioritizes high-impact journals selected via rigorous editorial criteria, covering publications from 1900 onward as of 2025. Social sciences citation indexes, such as the (SSCI), target fields including , , and , indexing approximately 3,400 journals to capture interdisciplinary influences often underrepresented in pure science metrics. Introduced in 1972 with retrospective coverage from 1966, SSCI addresses citation patterns shaped by policy-oriented and theoretical works, though it has faced critique for potential Western-centric journal selection biases favoring English-language publications. Humanities-focused indexes, like the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), cover over 1,800 journals in areas such as , , and , where citation density is lower due to reliance on monographs and interpretive scholarship rather than cumulative empirical data. First available in 1975, A&HCI incorporates non-journal sources like books and essays to better reflect field-specific dissemination, launched to extend citation analysis beyond STEM disciplines amid debates on its applicability to less quantifiable impacts. Emerging and alternative types include the (ESCI), initiated in 2015 to include nascent, regionally diverse journals not yet meeting core collection thresholds, promoting broader global representation without immediate assignment. Specialized variants extend to non-scholarly domains, such as citation indexes for technological innovation tracking or legal tools like (dating to ), which classify case references as supporting, distinguishing, or overruling to aid precedential analysis. These types collectively enable causal tracing of idea propagation, though coverage gaps persist in non-Western or open-access literature.

Historical Development

The systematic tracking of citations in legal literature predates modern scientific citation indexes by over a century, with early efforts focused on verifying the ongoing validity of judicial precedents. In 1821, Simon Greenleaf published the first edition of A Collection of Cases Overruled, Doubted, or Limited in Their Application, which cataloged approximately 600 cases whose authority had been questioned or overturned, expanding to 3,000 entries by the 1840 third edition; this manual compilation addressed the lack of reliable tools for assessing case status in an era of sparse aids. Frank Shepard advanced this approach in by inventing a citator system initially as Illinois Citations, which evolved into —a comprehensive tool that listed all subsequent citations to a given case, , or , including indicators of treatment such as "," "," or "distinguished." By , Shepard's incorporated parallel citations, precise references, and regular updates via adhesive supplements, establishing a model for efficient, cumulative citation retrieval that dominated and influenced later innovations like online citators in the 1970s and 1980s. This legal citator, operational since , demonstrated the practical utility of reverse citation indexing—tracing incoming references rather than outgoing ones—for validating and navigating evolving bodies of precedent. In contrast, bibliographic indexing prior to the mid-20th century primarily relied on subject, author, or title-based organization rather than citation linkages, serving as foundational tools for literature retrieval but lacking the relational depth of citators. Poole's Index to Periodical Literature, initiated by William I. Fletcher in 1848 and covering articles from 1802 to 1906 (with supplements to 1907), exemplified this by providing subject access to thousands of periodicals through manual keyword compilation, facilitating discovery without tracking scholarly interconnections via references. Such indexes supported bibliographic control in and research but did not systematically exploit citations as navigational devices, a limitation that persisted until post-World War II experiments, including Eugene Garfield's early studies of reference lists in review articles as implicit indexing aids, bridged toward citation-based systems. These bibliographic efforts thus provided infrastructural precedents for organized documentation, though their non-relational nature underscored the innovation of legal-style citation tracking when adapted beyond .

Inception of Scientific Citation Indexing

The concept of scientific citation indexing originated with Eugene Garfield's 1955 proposal in the journal Science, where he outlined a system to index citations as a means of associating ideas across scientific literature, addressing limitations in traditional subject-based indexing amid the post-World War II proliferation of publications. Garfield argued that tracking forward citations—references made to prior works—would enable researchers to trace the evolution of ideas, identify critiques, and avoid redundant rediscovery, drawing an analogy to established legal citation tools like Shepard's Citations while emphasizing mechanical compilation for scalability. This approach prioritized empirical linkage via actual scholarly references over subjective categorization, positing that citation patterns could reveal influence and relevance more objectively than keyword searches alone. Garfield founded the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) in 1960 to operationalize these ideas, initially focusing on information retrieval tools for the burgeoning scientific output, which had exceeded manual indexing capacities. Early efforts included pilot projects, such as a 1962 collaboration with the to produce a genetics citation index, testing multi-year citation tracking to validate retrieval efficiency. These experiments demonstrated the feasibility of automating citation extraction from journals, using punch-card technology to handle thousands of references, and confirmed that citation indexing could cover multidisciplinary domains without relying on author-assigned descriptors. The first edition of the Science Citation Index (SCI) was published in 1963 by ISI, marking the practical inception of systematic scientific citation indexing as a commercial product available for purchase, initially comprising a print-based quarterly compilation from approximately 600 core journals. By 1964, regular publication ensued in a five-volume format, expanding to index over 1,100 journals and enabling users to navigate citation networks for discovery and validation. This innovation shifted scientific documentation from backward-looking bibliographies to forward-tracing maps of intellectual dependency, fundamentally altering how evidence of impact was assessed in research evaluation.

Post-1960s Expansion and Digital Evolution

Following the launch of the Science Citation Index (SCI) in 1964, citation indexing expanded beyond natural sciences to encompass social sciences and humanities, driven by demand for comprehensive scholarly tracking across disciplines. The Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), introduced in 1972, initially covered over 1,000 journals in fields such as economics, psychology, and sociology, enabling citation analysis in non-experimental domains where traditional subject indexing proved less effective. This was followed by the Arts & Humanities Citation Index (AHCI) in 1975, which indexed approximately 1,100 journals and select non-journal sources in areas like literature, philosophy, and history, addressing the unique citation patterns in interpretive scholarship that often reference monographs and older works. These additions, produced by the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI), broadened the scope from roughly 600 SCI journals to multidisciplinary coverage, facilitating cross-field research evaluation amid growing global publication volumes exceeding 1 million papers annually by the late 1970s. The 1980s marked the transition from print-only formats to , with ISI offering SCI data on magnetic tapes for custom database integration by libraries and researchers, allowing rudimentary computational analysis. By 1988, versions emerged via partnerships like Compact , distributing quarterly updates of citation data on optical discs that held millions of records, a significant advance over annual print volumes weighing hundreds of pounds and costing thousands of dollars. This shift reduced physical storage needs and enabled desktop searching, though limited by hardware constraints and , with early electronic SCI accessing data back to 1945 for select journals. The 1990s internet proliferation catalyzed full digital evolution, as ISI developed web-accessible interfaces; the Web of Science (WoS) platform debuted in 1997 as an online successor, integrating SCI, SSCI, and AHCI with real-time updates and Boolean search capabilities across over 20,000 journals by 2000. Thomson Reuters acquired ISI in 1992, accelerating proprietary enhancements like cited reference searching, while competitors entered the market: Elsevier's launched in 2004, indexing 18,000+ titles with stronger emphasis on international and conference coverage. These platforms scaled to billions of citations, with WoS processing over 1.5 billion cited references by 2010, enabling algorithmic metrics and global dissemination via subscriptions. Digital formats introduced efficiencies like automated indexing and navigation between citing and cited works, but also challenges such as coverage biases toward English-language journals, with non-Western publications underrepresented until expansions in the added emerging sources indexes. By the 2020s, cloud-based access and integrations further evolved citation tools, supporting large-scale while proprietary models persisted alongside open alternatives.

Major Services and Databases

Proprietary Platforms

, operated by , is a proprietary citation indexing platform that traces its origins to the Science Citation Index established in 1964. Its Core Collection selectively indexes approximately 22,000 high-impact journals, while the broader platform encompasses over 34,000 journals, more than 271 million metadata records, and over 3 billion citation links across 254 subject categories, with archival coverage extending to 1864. The platform emphasizes rigorous editorial curation for quality and influence, facilitating citation tracking, author profiling, and bibliometric analysis through tools like Essential Science Indicators. It supports metrics such as the Journal Impact Factor (JIF), calculated annually via , which in its 2025 release evaluated 22,249 journals in 254 categories, prioritizing peer-reviewed content from established publishers. Scopus, developed and maintained by , represents another leading proprietary service, launched in 2004 to provide an alternative with broader scope. It indexes over 25,000 peer-reviewed journals alongside , books, and other materials, totaling more than 100 million content items and 1.7 billion cited references as of early 2025, spanning life sciences, physical sciences, sciences, and social sciences. Curated by independent subject experts, Scopus employs algorithmic and manual selection to ensure relevance, offering features like author identifiers, affiliation data, and forward/backward citation searching. Its primary metric, , assesses journal impact based on a four-year citation window, covering over 28,000 titles and incorporating open-access content more inclusively than some competitors. Both platforms operate on subscription models, restricting full access to institutional or paid users, which enables proprietary enhancements like advanced analytics and integrations but limits open dissemination of underlying . maintains a for precision in citation accuracy due to its manual verification processes, while Scopus excels in volume and multilingual coverage, indexing a higher proportion of non-English publications. Empirical comparisons indicate Scopus captures 96-99% overlap with journals but extends to additional titles in emerging fields, though both prioritize influential, English-dominant outlets, potentially underrepresenting regional or niche scholarship. These services dominate institutional research evaluation, powering tools for calculations, co-citation mapping, and funding assessments, yet their commercial structure has drawn scrutiny for data silos amid growing demands for transparency.

Open and Alternative Indexes

Open and alternative citation indexes encompass freely accessible platforms and datasets that index scholarly citations, often prioritizing , broader coverage, and reduced dependency on commercial providers like Clarivate's or Elsevier's . These systems emerged in response to criticisms of databases' high costs, limited transparency in , and selective coverage favoring established Western journals, enabling wider use in bibliometric , discovery, and without institutional subscriptions. While indexes emphasize curated, peer-reviewed content, open alternatives leverage web crawling, APIs, and crowdsourced data, resulting in larger scales—such as billions of citations—but potential trade-offs in accuracy and exclusion of non-English or non-journal outputs. Google Scholar, launched in November 2004 by , functions as a broad web-based for scholarly , indexing over 200 million documents including peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts, and court opinions across disciplines. It tracks citations automatically, offering metrics like total citations, , and i10-index for authors via Citations profiles, which users can create to monitor impact over time. Unlike curated indexes, its algorithm harvests data from publisher sites, repositories, and open web sources, yielding higher citation counts—often 1.5 to 2 times those in —but susceptible to overcounting due to duplicates, self-citations, and inclusion of non-peer-reviewed materials without manual verification. Studies comparing coverage find retrieves 88% of citations across fields, outperforming in volume but lagging in precision for social sciences and . Semantic Scholar, developed by the and publicly released in 2015, employs to index and analyze over 200 million publications, initially focusing on , , and before expanding multidisciplinary coverage. It extracts citation contexts, providing "" summaries, influential citations, and author disambiguation via the Academic Graph , which returns structured data on papers, citations, and references under permissive licensing for non-commercial use. The platform's AI-driven features, such as paper recommendation and citation graphs, enhance usability, with queries enabling bulk access to billions of citation edges; however, its reliance on publisher partnerships and introduces gaps in pre-2000 coverage and less emphasis on non-English works compared to proprietary databases. Evaluations highlight its utility for citation networks, though it underperforms in standardized metrics due to variable . OpenCitations, an independent not-for-profit infrastructure founded in 2015 at the , disseminates open bibliographic and citation data under CC0 waivers, harvesting from Crossref and other public sources to populate indexes like COCI (Crossref Open Citations Index), which as of 2023 contains over 1.5 billion citations from 60,000 journals dating back to 2000. Its datasets, including metadata for citing-cited pairs, support reproducible without API restrictions, with tools like the OpenCitations Meta service providing endpoints for querying citation counts and bibliographic details. By focusing on transparency—releasing raw data dumps monthly—OpenCitations addresses proprietary "black box" issues, though its scope is limited to Crossref-registered DOIs, excluding books, preprints, and non-DOI works, and coverage trails for older or niche citations. The initiative's emphasis on open scholarship has influenced policies like the 2021 requirement for open citations from funded research. Dimensions, launched in 2018 by , offers a free version indexing over 140 million publications with linked citations, grants, patents, clinical trials, and policy documents, drawing references from Crossref, , and OpenCitations for comprehensive coverage exceeding in volume for recent works. Users access citation metrics like Relative Citation Ratio (RCR), field-weighted counts, and via a web interface or , with filters for open access status and funding ties; the platform's model facilitates discovery of research ecosystems, such as citation chains to grants. While the free tier restricts exports and advanced analytics (available via paid badges), comparisons show Dimensions captures 20-30% more citations than for interdisciplinary fields, though it includes more predatory journals due to minimal curation and over-relies on automated extraction prone to parsing errors in reference lists. OpenAlex, released in 2022 by as an open successor to Graph, catalogs over 250 million scholarly works and 2 billion citations from sources including Crossref, , and national repositories, providing daily API updates and bulk downloads under CC0 for unrestricted reuse. It unifies identifiers (, , FundRef) for entities like authors and institutions, enabling global coverage that surpasses and in journal count and non-Western inclusion, with 2025 analyses confirming broader scope for emerging fields like AI ethics. However, its algorithmic entity resolution yields higher false positives in author matching and citation linking compared to manually curated indexes, limiting reliability for high-stakes evaluations; proponents argue its openness fosters innovation in metrics like collaborative networks, despite initial challenges addressed through feedback loops.

Methodological Features

Indexing and Data Processing

Citation indexes begin the indexing process with rigorous source selection to ensure coverage of high-quality, influential publications. For proprietary databases like the Core Collection, an editorial team evaluates journals, books, and based on criteria such as peer-review rigor, , and international diversity, followed by technical compatibility checks for data delivery formats like unsecured PDFs with DOIs or . Similarly, employs a Title Evaluation Platform to assess serial publications against standards including editorial standards, English-language abstracts, and regular publication schedules, prioritizing peer-reviewed content with assignments. This selective curation contrasts with more automated approaches, such as Google Scholar's web crawling of academic repositories, publisher sites, and PDFs, which prioritizes breadth over manual vetting but can introduce inconsistencies in source reliability. Once sources are selected, involves ingesting full-text or metadata feeds via protocols like FTP or publisher portals, capturing bibliographic elements including titles, authors, abstracts, keywords, and dates. Cited are extracted from lists, with metadata enriched through standardized fields (e.g., assigning types like articles or reviews based on ). In , early-access content is indexed provisionally using DOIs and updated upon formal , enabling timely citation tracking. processes incoming articles within approximately four days for covered journals, leveraging algorithms to standardize metadata across disciplines. Extraction algorithms parse unstructured strings into components—such as authors, titles, journal names, volumes, and years—using , matching, and identifiers like DOIs to handle formatting variations. Linking citations requires normalization and matching to resolve ambiguities, such as author name variants or incomplete references. Databases apply fuzzy matching techniques, prioritizing unique identifiers like DOIs for precision; for instance, builds a citation network by connecting extracted cited works to existing indexed records, supporting forward and backward searches. Scopus uses advanced algorithms for cross-disciplinary linking, ensuring references point accurately despite inconsistencies in citation styles. Group authors, such as collaborations, are disambiguated and indexed separately to maintain linkage integrity. Errors in parsing or matching can occur, particularly in automated systems like , where heuristic-based extraction from diverse web sources may yield duplicate or erroneous links, though manual corrections by users partially mitigate this. Quality control permeates the pipeline, with continuous monitoring for coverage gaps—such as 24-month delays in triggering re-evaluation or delisting—and mechanisms for corrections via publisher-submitted data change requests. Human oversight supplements automation in curated indexes to verify extraction accuracy and enforce consistency, though proprietary algorithms limit full transparency into matching precision rates. This process enables the core functionality of citation indexes: mapping intellectual connections through verifiable networks, albeit with inherent challenges in handling non-standard or erroneous citations from source documents.

Citation-Based Metrics and Tools

Citation-based metrics derive from data in citation indexes to assess the influence of scholarly outputs, such as journals, authors, or individual articles, by analyzing patterns of citations received. These metrics emerged as quantitative proxies for research impact, particularly after the 1960s with the digitization of indexes like Science Citation Index, enabling automated computation of citation counts and derived indicators. They are widely used in academic evaluation but vary in scope, with journal-level metrics focusing on average citation rates and balancing productivity and impact. The Journal Impact Factor (JIF), proprietary to Analytics, measures a journal's citation by dividing the number of citations in a given year to citable items (typically research articles and reviews) published in the prior two years by the total number of such citable items in those years. For instance, the 2023 JIF reflects citations from 2023 to 2021-2022 content. Introduced in the via , it relies on data and excludes self-citations in its calculation, though journal self-citations are capped at certain thresholds to mitigate inflation. Author-level metrics include the , proposed by physicist in 2005, defined as the largest number h such that an author has at least h papers each cited at least h times, with the remaining papers cited fewer than h times. Computed from citation data in indexes like or , it integrates publication quantity and per-paper impact, outperforming raw citation counts by resisting skew from outliers; for example, an h-index of 20 requires 20 papers with ≥20 citations each. Variants like the , introduced in 2006, extend this by emphasizing highly cited works: the largest g where the top g papers collectively receive at least g2 citations, thus crediting prolific citation accumulators more than the h-index. Journal-level alternatives encompass the Eigenfactor Score, calculated by using data over five years, which weights incoming citations by the citing journal's influence (via , akin to Google's ) and scales with journal size to estimate total readership time allocated to it; scores sum to 1 across all journals, with self-citations discounted by 20% for recency. Elsevier's , derived from , broadens JIF by averaging citations over a four-year window to all document types (including editorials and letters, not just citable items), divided by the number of documents published in those years; released annually since 2016, it covers over 28,000 titles as of 2024 and includes percentiles for benchmarking. These metrics are operationalized through dedicated tools in major citation platforms. (Clarivate) provides JIF, , and via its analytics suite, emphasizing controlled, high-quality indexing of peer-reviewed content since 1964. (Elsevier), launched in 2004, computes , SJR (, a variant), and author across a larger, multidisciplinary corpus including more non-English and open-access sources. , a free engine aggregating web-crawled scholarly documents since 2004, offers citation counts and through its Citations profile but lacks proprietary journal metrics, providing broader but less curated coverage prone to duplicates and gray literature. Comparative studies show and capture 20-50% more citations than in social sciences, reflecting database scope differences.

Applications and Societal Impact

Role in Academic Assessment

Citation indexes serve as quantitative tools in academic assessment, particularly for evaluating productivity and impact during tenure, promotion, and merit decisions. Metrics derived from like and , such as the and journal impact factors, are routinely incorporated into faculty dossiers to gauge scholarly influence. The , proposed by physicist in 2005, defines a researcher's impact as the highest number h of publications that have each received at least h citations, balancing output quantity with citation quality. This metric has gained traction in fields like , where analyses from 2005 demonstrated its utility in ranking researchers based on citation frequency relative to peers. University policies often mandate or recommend contextualized citation data in promotion reviews, including values when discipline-specific norms apply. For instance, external evaluators may reference scores alongside qualitative assessments to inform judgments on scholarly reputation, as seen in legal academia where citations correlate with but require supplementation with peer surveys. agencies and hiring committees similarly leverage these indicators; a 2016 analysis noted their role in allocating grants and honors by estimating cumulative impact, though disciplinary scaling is essential due to varying citation practices. Bibliometric tools from citation indexes also support institutional evaluations, such as department rankings and , by aggregating and journal metrics to proxy quality. In and related fields, promotion committees have integrated citation counts since at least the early , using them to adjust loads or merit pay, provided interpretations account for field-specific benchmarks. Despite their prevalence, guidelines emphasize with qualitative evidence, as raw metrics alone can overlook nuances like citation inflation or subfield differences.

Contributions to Research Discovery and Policy

Citation indexes have fundamentally enhanced research discovery by enabling scholars to trace intellectual lineages through forward and backward citation searches, revealing connections between publications that might otherwise remain obscured in traditional keyword-based retrieval systems. This approach, pioneered by in the 1950s and realized in the Science Citation Index launched in 1964, allows researchers to identify highly cited works indicative of foundational contributions and to explore emerging trends by following citation patterns across disciplines. For instance, tools within indexes like and facilitate the mapping of citation networks, which empirically demonstrate clustering of influential papers around breakthroughs, as evidenced in visualizations of scientific landscapes that highlight pathways to Nobel-recognized discoveries. Advanced features in modern citation indexes, such as contextual in platforms like , further amplify discovery by classifying citations as supporting, contrasting, or mentioning, thereby providing nuanced insights into how ideas evolve and are critiqued, with studies showing this reduces misinterpretation of prior work and accelerates validation of hypotheses across fields. Empirical analyses confirm that access to comprehensive indexes correlates with broader literature coverage in reviews, as researchers using or report higher rates of identifying interdisciplinary links compared to non-indexed searches, though coverage gaps in non-English or emerging fields can limit universality. In policy domains, inform by quantifying impact through metrics like citation counts and h-indices, which agencies correlate with funding outcomes; for example, a 2022 of U.S. biomedical researchers from 1996 to 2022 found that federally funded principal investigators averaged 1.9 times higher citation rates than unfunded peers, guiding priorities toward high-impact areas. The Policy Citation Index, integrated into since 2023 and expanded by October 2025 to cover over 500 global sources including government agencies and think tanks, tracks citations from documents to scholarly outputs, enabling evidence-based policymaking by revealing which studies influence regulations and legislation. This has practical applications, such as in the European Union's program, where citation data from and similar indexes underpin evaluations of societal impact for grant awards, though reliance on such metrics risks overemphasizing quantifiable outputs over qualitative relevance. Overall, these tools support causal assessments of into , with bibliometric studies showing that highly cited works are 2-3 times more likely to be referenced in governmental reports on science funding strategies.

Criticisms and Limitations

Empirical and Methodological Shortcomings

Empirical studies have demonstrated limited validity in using citation counts to proxy research quality. In an analysis of papers from the behavioral and brain sciences, citation counts exhibited weak and inconsistent correlations with expert-assessed indicators such as statistical accuracy, evidential value, and replicability, with no significant positive association for replicability ( BF₁₀ = 1/13). Paradoxically, articles containing statistical reporting errors received higher citations on average (M = 52.1 versus M = 46.8 for error-free articles, BF₁₀ = 18.1). Journal impact factors similarly underperformed as predictors, showing negative associations with evidential value (b = -0.033, BF₁₀ = 60.52) and replicability. Methodological flaws in citation databases undermine count reliability. Major indexes like exhibit reference list errors at rates up to 28%, unstable journal inclusions, and challenges in disambiguating authors with similar names, resulting in merged or erroneous citation attributions. displays geographic biases toward North American and Western European publications, with limited tracking of pre-1970 citations and a journal-centric focus that excludes books and other formats. , while broader, suffers from opaque coverage, inclusion of predatory journals, and inconsistent result sorting, further compounding inaccuracies. Citation analysis inherently disregards contextual nuances, treating all citations equivalently regardless of —whether affirmative influence, , or routine acknowledgment. This overlooks non-endorsing uses, as over half of citations in examined datasets exerted little to no substantive influence on citing works. Multi-authorship exacerbates inequities, as standard fractional counting is rarely applied; instead, full credit accrues to all co-authors, systematically advantaging large teams (e.g., consortia averaging 59 authors per paper) over independent researchers. Comparisons across disciplines remain invalid due to divergent citation norms, with fields like generating far higher volumes than or . Metrics also demand 2–3 years for citations to accumulate meaningfully, introducing biases against recent publications and favoring established or older works. These issues collectively limit citation indexes' capacity to reflect true scholarly or societal impact, as they capture only academic referencing patterns rather than evidential validity or broader .

Coverage Biases and Representativeness Issues

Citation indexes such as and exhibit significant disciplinary coverage biases, disproportionately favoring natural sciences, , and medical fields over social sciences and . A comparative analysis of journal coverage revealed that both databases index a higher proportion of journals in STEM disciplines, with social sciences and underrepresented due to selective inclusion criteria that prioritize peer-reviewed journals amenable to citation tracking, while overlooking monographs and other formats prevalent in humanities . This skew arises from historical development focused on , resulting in incomplete representation of non-STEM scholarship and potential undervaluation in evaluative metrics. Language biases further compound representativeness issues, with English-language publications dominating indexing. The Science Citation Index, a core component of , includes relatively few non-English journals, even from major non-English-speaking countries, leading to undercoverage of global research output. Empirical data show that non-English papers receive fewer citations, exacerbating exclusion as indexes prioritize highly cited English-dominant content in a self-reinforcing cycle. For instance, studies indicate that articles in languages other than English have citation rates up to 46.3% uncited compared to 33.7% for English ones, distorting global scholarly impact assessments. Geographical disparities manifest in underrepresentation of research from developing countries and non-Western regions. and show higher journal coverage in and , with only about 15% more journals indexed by Scopus overall but persistent gaps elsewhere, favoring established Western institutions. This results from criteria emphasizing journal quality metrics that correlate with resource-rich environments, sidelining outputs from lower-income nations where local journals may not meet selection thresholds. Consequently, citation-based evaluations amplify inequalities, as evidenced by bibliometric analyses showing excess publications from the and dominating indexed content. Such biases undermine the indexes' representativeness for international comparisons, potentially misinforming and decisions by overlooking diverse global contributions.

Controversies

Manipulation Tactics and Citation Gaming

Citation manipulation encompasses practices where researchers, authors, or journal editors artificially inflate citation counts to enhance metrics such as the , journal impact factor (JIF), or overall bibliometric rankings. These tactics exploit the reliance on citation indices like and , which aggregate raw citation data without robust normalization for anomalous patterns, leading to distorted assessments of scholarly impact. Common methods include excessive self-citation, where authors repeatedly reference their prior works beyond substantive relevance, and coordinated mutual citation among collaborators to boost collective metrics. Excessive self-citation has been documented across disciplines, with rates exceeding 25% in many journals indexed in , particularly affecting lower-impact outlets. For instance, analysis of and journals revealed self-citation rates up to 20.99% in clinical trials subfields from 2008 to 2022, inflating individual h-indices by an average of 1.5 points per additional annual publication through strategic self-referencing. In response, Clarivate Analytics has suppressed impact factors for journals engaging in such practices; in 2020, ten journals were denied JIFs due to excessive self-citation or citation stacking, following similar actions against 20 journals in 2018. Citation cartels represent a more organized form of gaming, involving groups of authors or editors who disproportionately cite each other's works to elevate journal impact factors or institutional rankings. Defined as networks where intra-group citations far outpace citations to external peers working on similar topics, these cartels have been identified in fields like , where coordinated efforts improved university standings in global rankings as of January 2024. Examples include journals like ACI and MIM, where visualization of 2013–2015 citation networks showed clustered self-reinforcing patterns among affiliated authors. manipulation exacerbates this, as seen in cases where journal policies implicitly encourage self-citation in editorials or reviews, prompting resignations such as that of an editor from two journals in 2017 amid "considerable" citation-boosting attempts. Emerging tactics include citation mills, where fraudulent profiles on platforms like generate artificial citations via pre-print servers or paid services, affecting approximately 1.6 million profiles analyzed in a 2025 study. These practices undermine the causal link between citations and true intellectual influence, as indices fail to distinguish genuine endorsements from engineered inflation. Detection relies on anomalies like disproportionate 2-year self-citation windows targeting JIF calculations, but systemic incentives—such as tenure tied to metrics—perpetuate gaming across institutions. Between 2007 and 2017, suspended 329 journals for such manipulations, highlighting the scale of the issue in citation-dependent evaluations.

Broader Effects on Scientific Incentives and Integrity

Reliance on citation indices for evaluating academic performance has fostered perverse incentives that prioritize metric optimization over substantive scientific advancement. Researchers, facing "" pressures amplified by metrics like the and journal impact factors, increasingly engage in practices that inflate citation counts at the expense of research quality. For instance, following the introduction of citation-based schemes, self-citations per paper rose by 9.5% across disciplines, reflecting a systemic shift toward self-promotion rather than external validation of work. This trend undermines the original intent of citation indices as proxies for influence, as scholars dissect findings into minimal publishable units—a practice known as slicing—to maximize output and citation opportunities. Citation gaming further erodes integrity through organized manipulation tactics. Citation cartels, where groups of researchers reciprocally cite each other's work to artificially boost metrics, have proliferated in response to national policies tying and promotions to bibliometric scores. Coercive citation practices by journal reviewers, demanding inclusion of specific references unrelated to the manuscript's merit, exacerbate this issue, with evidence from multiple fields showing on publication decisions. Additionally, the rise of "citation mills"—services offering purchased citations via preprints or ghost-authored papers—represents a commodification of scholarly validation, distorting indices like and . These dynamics have broader causal effects on scientific culture, diverting resources from high-risk, foundational research toward incremental, citation-friendly outputs. Empirical analyses reveal that metric-driven incentives correlate with heightened fraud risks, including to secure publications in high-impact venues. While proponents argue metrics democratize assessment, critics contend they entrench a zero-sum that rewards gaming savvy over evidential rigor, as seen in anomalous co-citation patterns detectable via bibliometric audits. Consequently, the integrity of suffers, with eroded by revelations of manipulated impacts that fail to reflect true epistemic contributions.

References

  1. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/science1955.pdf
  2. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.122.3159.108
  3. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/essays/history-of-citation-indexing/
  4. https://researchguides.library.wisc.edu/bibliometrics
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9382220/
  6. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/research-metrics-and-analytics/articles/10.3389/frma.2016.00001/full
  7. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10439862231170972
  8. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/science-citation-index-expanded/
  9. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/V1p188y1962-73.pdf
  10. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/essays/the-concept-of-citation-indexing/
  11. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/vladivostok.html
  12. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/the-institute-for-scientific-information/history/
  13. http://wokinfo.com/sci-anniversary.html
  14. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/
  15. https://www.searchsmart.org/results/wos.ssci
  16. https://akjournals.com/page/indexing-databases/indexing-databases-all-about-their-similarities-and-differences
  17. https://library.uncw.edu/eresources/arts_humanities_citation_index
  18. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/understanding-research-metrics/esci/
  19. https://scite.ai/blog/brief-overview-Shepards-Citations
  20. https://lis.academy/information-processing-retrieval/citation-indexing-scholarly-information-access/
  21. https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1116&context=law_faculty_scholarship
  22. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=3333
  23. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/ci/chapter2.pdf
  24. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/magazines/indexes
  25. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/research-metrics-and-analytics/articles/10.3389/frma.2018.00008/full
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/543492a
  27. https://www.searchsmart.org/results/wos.ahci
  28. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/barcelona2007a.pdf
  29. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/barcelona2007.pdf
  30. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6415030_The_evolution_of_the_Science_Citation_Index
  31. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/9/1/12
  32. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/1/1/363/15569/Web-of-Science-as-a-data-source-for-research-on
  33. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/2/1/20/97574/Large-scale-comparison-of-bibliographic-data
  34. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-funding-analytics/journal-citation-reports/
  35. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clarivate-unveils-the-2025-journal-citation-reports-302483920.html
  36. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus
  37. https://blog.scopus.com/100-million-reasons-to-trust-scopus/
  38. https://elsevier.libguides.com/scopus/metrics
  39. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020arXiv201100223S/abstract
  40. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jrsm.1729
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/12/4/43
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12280546/
  43. https://libguides.utoledo.edu/citation/googlescholar
  44. https://guides.library.cornell.edu/impact/google-scholar-citations
  45. https://instr.iastate.libguides.com/c.php?g=901522&p=6492159
  46. https://www.semanticscholar.org/product/api
  47. https://www.semanticscholar.org/product
  48. https://observablehq.com/%40uwdata/querying-citation-data
  49. https://opencitations.hypotheses.org/3140
  50. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/1/1/428/15580/OpenCitations-an-infrastructure-organization-for
  51. https://zenodo.org/records/6940919/files/OpenCitations%2520-%2520present%2520status%2520and%2520future%2520plans.pdf?download=1
  52. https://www.dimensions.ai/products/all-products/dimensions-free-version/
  53. https://dimensions.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/23000018849-where-are-citations-in-dimensions-coming-from-
  54. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-referencing/web-of-science/web-of-science-core-collection/content-collection-and-indexing-process/
  55. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1533854/
  57. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
  58. https://hslmcmaster.libguides.com/impact/types/citation-based
  59. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/blog/closer-look-journal-impact-factor-numerator/
  60. https://support.clarivate.com/ScientificandAcademicResearch/s/article/Journal-Citation-Reports-Document-Types-Included-in-the-Impact-Factor-Calculation?language=en_US
  61. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/blog/closer-look-eigenfactor-metrics/
  62. http://www.eigenfactor.org/about.php
  63. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/metrics/citescore
  64. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/citescore-a-new-metric-to-help-you-choose-the-right-journal
  65. https://clarivate.libguides.com/jcr
  66. https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/metrics
  67. https://scholar.google.com/citations
  68. https://guides.lib.uconn.edu/citationmetricsptr
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10025721/
  70. http://www.imtlucca.it/en/introduction-to-bibliometrics
  71. https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1118/1.2142597
  72. https://provost.uoregon.edu/department-review
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733323002238
  74. https://www.law.virginia.edu/scholarship/publication/joshua-fischman/1382411
  75. https://ruscio.pages.tcnj.edu/files/2016/08/Ruscio-2016-PPS-Hip-hip-h-index.pdf
  76. https://repository.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098&context=libraries_pubs
  77. https://www.cwts.nl/pdf/CWTS_bibliometrics.pdf
  78. http://www.jrhasselback.com/Articles/Citations.pdf
  79. https://publications.aaahq.org/iae/article/26/1/99/7776/Pitfalls-of-Using-Citation-Indices-for-Making
  80. https://direct.mit.edu/qss/article/2/3/882/102990/scite-A-smart-citation-index-that-displays-the
  81. https://careset.com/9-essential-citation-indexes-for-science-research-insights/
  82. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2799260
  83. https://webofscience.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/33001278836625-Policy-Citation-Index
  84. https://clarivate.com/academia-government/blog/connecting-research-to-real-world-outcomes-policy-documents-in-the-web-of-science/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8897117/
  86. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.220334
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4613388/
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322000129
  89. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/research-metrics-and-analytics/articles/10.3389/frma.2021.824518/full
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283722260_The_Journal_Coverage_of_Web_of_Science_and_Scopus_a_Comparative_Analysis
  91. https://www.cwts.nl/TvR/documents/AvR-Language-Scientometrics.pdf
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9893128/
  93. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.06499
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5226904/
  95. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-024-04948-x
  96. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/09/09/citation-indexes-make-research-more-unequal/
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38082157/
  98. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504851.2021.1965528
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10827896/
  100. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-88709-7
  101. https://appliednetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s41109-025-00725-8
  102. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157721000924
  103. https://elifesciences.org/articles/88540
  104. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3043246/
  105. https://retractionwatch.com/2021/06/30/ten-journals-denied-2020-impact-factors-because-of-excessive-self-citation-or-citation-stacking/
  106. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/06/27/impact-factor-denied-20-journals-self-citation-stacking/
  107. https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2017/01/03/citations-cartels-an-emerging-problem-in-scientific-publishing
  108. https://www.science.org/content/article/citation-cartels-help-some-mathematicians-and-their-universities-climb-rankings
  109. https://www.proof-reading-service.com/blogs/academic-publishing/citation-cartels-manipulating-the-metrics-of-authors-and-journals
  110. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2016/09/26/visualizing-citation-cartels/
  111. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/17/editor-resigns-two-journals-considerable-citation-boosting-attempts/
  112. https://publicationethics.org/news/case-discussion-editor-manipulation-impact-factor
  113. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048733322001317
  114. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/4598/Gaming-the-MetricsMisconduct-and-Manipulation-in
  115. https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2023/03/30/how-junk-citations-have-discredited-the-academy-part-4/
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1751157721000754
  117. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5206685/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6739054/
  119. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.09.653229v1.full-text
  120. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10805-025-09631-1
  121. https://kityates.substack.com/p/academic-fraud-is-growing-problem
  122. https://www.jackwbaker.com/advice/The_corrupting_effects_of_academic_citation_metrics.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.