Citations Systematically Misrepresent the Quality and Impact of Research Articles: Survey and Experimental Evidence from Thousands of Citers

Citations are ubiquitous in evaluating research, but how exactly they relate to what they are thought to measure (quality and intellectual impact) is unclear. We investigate the relationships between citations, quality, and impact using a survey with an embedded experiment in which 12,670 authors in 15 academic fields describe about 25K specific referencing decisions. Results suggest that citation counts, when equated with quality and impact, are biased in opposite directions. First, experimentally exposing papers' actual citation counts during the survey causes respondents to perceive all but the top 10% cited papers as of lower quality. Because perceptions of quality are a key factor in citing decisions, citation counts are likely to endogenously cause more citing of top papers and equating them with quality overestimates the actual quality of those papers. Conversely, 54% of references had either zero or minor influence on authors who cite them, but references to highly cited papers were about 200% more likely to denote substantial impact. Equating citations with impact thus underestimates the impact of highly cited papers. Real citation practices thus reveal that citations are biased measures of quality and impact.