Do "bad" citations have "good" effects?
Honglin Bao, Misha Teplitskiy

TL;DR
This paper uses an agent-based model to explore how rhetorical citations, often considered undesirable, can actually diversify attention and reduce inequality in scientific literature, challenging conventional views.
Contribution
It introduces a novel model that demonstrates the effects of rhetorical citing on citation dynamics and literature diversity, highlighting potential benefits of such practices.
Findings
Rhetorical citing increases citation quality correlation.
It boosts citation churn and reduces inequality.
It promotes attention redistribution among papers.
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…
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.
Taxonomy
Topicsscientometrics and bibliometrics research · Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
