Stop Posting Your Citation Count

"I often see researchers posting celebratory messages on LinkedIn when they reach a citation milestone (e.g., 10,000 citations). Recently, researchers have been posting screenshots of their Clarivate citation counts. I understand the appeal, especially if you work so hard for years. And academia treats these numbers as professional currency. But there is a fundamental problem: The evidence clearly shows that citation counts are not indicators of research quality."

"Reproducibility tells an even more troubling story. A 2021 Science Advances paper examined major replication projects in psychology, economics, and general science journals and found that papers that failed to replicate were cited approximately 16 times more per year than papers that successfully replicated. Even after replication failures became public, the citation advantage continued. Only about 12% of post-replication citations acknowledged the replication failure."

"Multiple studies demonstrate weak or absent relationships between citation counts and research quality (see e.g., Nieminen et al., 2006). In one analysis of 448 psychiatric journal articles, researchers found no association between statistical errors and citation counts. Journal visibility was the strongest predictor of citations, not methodological quality. Studies examining the h-index show similar problems. Research tracking highly-cited scientists across biology, computer science, economics, and physics found that the h-index's effectiveness as a measure of scientific reputation has declined substantially."

Citation counts primarily reflect attention and visibility rather than methodological rigor or research quality. Multiple studies find weak or absent relationships between citation counts and research quality, with journal visibility often predicting citations more than methodological soundness. Replication failures attract more citations—about 16 more per year—yet only roughly 12% of subsequent citations acknowledge those failures. The h-index has declined in effectiveness as a reputation measure across several fields. Prestige and novelty tend to drive citations. Transparency metrics such as the TOP Factor provide a more reliable signal of research quality.

Read at Psychology Today