Moustafa Khaled
a Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers , Paris , France.
Account Res. 2016;23(4):230-44. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1127763.
Multiple inherent biases related to different citation practices (for e.g., self-citations, negative citations, wrong citations, multi-authorship-biased citations, honorary citations, circumstantial citations, discriminatory citations, selective and arbitrary citations, etc.) make citation-based bibliometrics strongly flawed and defective measures. A paper can be highly cited for a while (for e.g., under circumstantial or transitional knowledge), but years later it may appear that its findings, paradigms, or theories were untrue or invalid anymore. By contrast, a paper may remain shelved or overlooked for years or decades, but new studies or discoveries may actualize its subject at any moment. As citation-based metrics are transformed into "commercial activities," the "citation credit" should be considered on a commercial basis too, in the sense that "citation credit" should be shared out as a "citation dividend" by shareholders (coauthors) averagely or proportionally to their contributions but not fully appropriated by each of them. At equal numbers of citations, the greater number of authors, the lower "citation credit" should be and vice versa. Overlooking the presence of distorted and subjective citation practices makes many people and administrators "obsessed" with the number of citations to such an extent to run after "highly cited" authors and to create specialized citation databases for commercial purposes. Citation-based bibliometrics, however, are unreliable and unscientific measures; citation counts do not mean that a more cited work is of a higher quality or accuracy than a less cited work because citations do not measure the quality or accuracy. Citations do not mean that a highly cited author or journal is more commendable than a less cited author or journal. Citations are not more than countable numbers: no more, no less.
与不同引用行为相关的多种固有偏差（例如，自引、负面引用、错误引用、多作者偏向引用、荣誉性引用、情境性引用、歧视性引用、选择性和随意性引用等）使得基于引用的文献计量学存在严重缺陷且是有瑕疵的衡量方法。一篇论文可能在一段时间内被大量引用（例如，在情境性或过渡性知识背景下），但多年后可能会发现其研究结果、范式或理论不再真实或有效。相比之下，一篇论文可能多年或数十年都被搁置或忽视，但新的研究或发现可能随时使其主题得以实现。随着基于引用的指标转变为“商业活动”，“引用信用”也应从商业角度来考虑，即“引用信用”应像“引用红利”一样由股东（共同作者）平均或按其贡献比例分配，而不是由他们各自完全占有。在引用次数相同的情况下，作者数量越多，“引用信用”就应越低，反之亦然。忽视扭曲和主观的引用行为的存在，使得许多人及管理人员对引用次数“痴迷”到追逐“高被引”作者并出于商业目的创建专门的引用数据库的程度。然而，基于引用的文献计量学是不可靠且不科学的衡量方法；引用次数并不意味着被引用次数多的作品比被引用次数少的作品质量更高或准确性更高，因为引用并不能衡量质量或准确性。引用次数也不意味着高被引作者或期刊比低被引作者或期刊更值得赞扬。引用次数不过是可数的数字：不多也不少。
