Teixeira da Silva Jaime A, Vuong Quan-Hoang
Independent researcher, Ikenobe 3011-2, P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho, Kagawa-ken 761-0799 Japan.
Centre for Interdisciplinary Social Research, Phenikaa University, Ha Dong District, Hanoi 100803 Viet Nam.
Scientometrics. 2021;126(6):5355-5360. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-03960-9. Epub 2021 May 8.
Logically, and by most common standards, academics would be pleased to be cited, considering it a form of recognition of their intellect. In return, especially those with high citation counts, such as Clarivate Analytics' Highly Cited Researchers, can benefit through peer recognition, rewards, funding, securing a better position, or expanding a collaborative network. Despite known and untold benefits, one issue has not been discussed: the right to refuse to be cited or the right to refuse a citation. Academics might not want to be cited by papers published in truly predatory journals, papers with false authors, or sting papers with falsified elements that employ underhanded ethical tactics. Currently, academics generally have the freedom to select where they publish their findings and choose studies they cite, so it is highly probable that requests to remove citations or refuse citations might never become formal publishing policy. Nonetheless, this academic discussion is worth having as valid and invalid literature increasingly gets mixed through citations, and as the grey zone between predatory/non-predatory and scholarly/unscholarly becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.
从逻辑上讲,按照大多数普遍标准,学者们会乐于被引用,将其视为对自身学识的一种认可形式。作为回报,尤其是那些被引用次数较高的学者,比如科睿唯安的高被引研究者,能够通过同行认可、奖励、资金支持、获得更好的职位或者拓展合作网络而受益。尽管有诸多已知和未知的益处,但有一个问题尚未被讨论:拒绝被引用的权利或拒绝引用的权利。学者们可能不想被发表在真正的掠夺性期刊上的论文、有虚假作者的论文或者采用不正当道德手段且包含伪造内容的恶意论文引用。目前,学者们通常有自由选择在哪里发表他们的研究成果以及选择他们所引用的研究,所以要求删除引用或拒绝引用的请求很可能永远不会成为正式的出版政策。尽管如此,随着有效文献和无效文献通过引用越来越多地混在一起,以及掠夺性/非掠夺性和学术性/非学术性之间的灰色地带越来越难以区分,这场学术讨论是值得进行的。