Citation Statistics
Robert Adler, John Ewing, Peter Taylor

TL;DR
This paper critically examines the use of citation data in research assessment, highlighting misconceptions about their objectivity and accuracy, and discusses the potential misuse of bibliometric indicators.
Contribution
It provides a critical analysis of citation statistics, challenging the assumption that they are inherently objective and suitable for research evaluation.
Findings
Citation data are often misused in research assessment.
Simple citation metrics do not necessarily reflect research quality.
Reliance on citation statistics can lead to flawed evaluations.
Abstract
This is a report about the use and misuse of citation data in the assessment of scientific research. The idea that research assessment must be done using ``simple and objective'' methods is increasingly prevalent today. The ``simple and objective'' methods are broadly interpreted as bibliometrics, that is, citation data and the statistics derived from them. There is a belief that citation statistics are inherently more accurate because they substitute simple numbers for complex judgments, and hence overcome the possible subjectivity of peer review. But this belief is unfounded.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
