Cited by 1,257scientometrics and bibliometrics researchWeb visibility and informetricsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 144 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 86 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories

Open access

Abstract

Citations are increasingly used as performance indicators in research policy and within the research system. Usually, citations are assumed to reflect the impact of the research or its quality. What is the justification for these assumptions and how do citations relate to research quality? These and similar issues have been addressed through several decades of scientometric research. This article provides an overview of some of the main issues at stake, including theories of citation and the interpretation and validity of citations as performance measures. Research quality is a multidimensional concept, where plausibility/soundness, originality, scientific value, and societal value commonly are perceived as key characteristics. The article investigates how citations may relate to these various research quality dimensions. It is argued that citations reflect aspects related to scientific impact and relevance, although with important limitations. On the contrary, there is no evidence that citations reflect other key dimensions of research quality. Hence, an increased use of citation indicators in research evaluation and funding may imply less attention to these other research quality dimensions, such as solidity/plausibility, originality, and societal value.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that citations can serve as limited indicators of scientific impact and relevance but not of other key research-quality dimensions such as solidity/plausibility, originality, or societal value. It synthesizes citation theories, validation studies, and quality dimensions to caution against using citation indicators as substitutes for peer review.

Key findings

  • Citations are argued to reflect aspects of scientific impact and relevance, but with important limitations; there is no evidence that they reflect other key dimensions of research quality—solidity/plausibility, originality, and societal value.
  • Comparative validation studies generally find moderately positive correspondence between citation indicators and peer review, but correlations are far from perfect; in REF 2014, field-weighted citation impact had a Spearman correlation of .28 at the overall level, with significant field variation and decreases for more recent outputs, leading to the conclusion that metrics cannot provide a like-for-like replacement for peer review.
  • Citation distributions are highly skewed: in many humanities disciplines an average paper receives less than one citation over 10 years, versus more than 40 in some biomedical fields (Web of Science 2005–2015); the Lowry et al. (1951) protein-measurement paper has more than 305,000 Web of Science citations, and the 4S statin trial paper more than 7,700.
  • The h-index is popular but not field-normalized and not corrected for career length, disadvantaging younger researchers; field, publication-year, and document-type normalization is standard, but there is no general agreement on the most appropriate normalization method.

Methods

  • Design: narrative/conceptual overview and selective literature review, not a systematic review or new empirical study.
  • Data or sample: no new dataset; the article draws on prior scientometric literature, citation theories, validation studies, and selected examples.
  • Main analysis: conceptual synthesis of citation indicators, referencing behavior, peer-review comparisons, and dimensions of research quality.

Limitations

  • Stated: coverage of topics and literature is selective and does not discuss all details; the literature on interaction between citing practices and evaluation processes is only referred to in passing; constructivist and semiotic theories of quality and citation are not discussed.
  • Stated/evident: few previous studies have systematically addressed how citations relate to each research-quality dimension, and the final part of the article is described as more explorative and discursive.
  • Evident: the paper presents no systematic search strategy or empirical test of its central claims, so its conclusions rely on narrative synthesis and selected examples.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2158244019829575

Cites

143 of 144 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 86 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 52 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 42
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 58
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
84 of 84
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Research quality is a multidimensional concept comprising plausibility/soundness, originality, scientific value, and societal value as key characteristics.

    “Research quality is a multidimensional concept, where plausibility/soundness, originality, scientific value, and societal value commonly are perceived as key characteristics.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There should be a correlation between citation indicators and peer assessments if citations legitimately can be used as indicators of scientific performance.

    “The basic assumption is that there should be a correlation if citations legitimately can be used as indicators of scientific performance.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Peer reviews are applied in many different contexts, of which peer assessments of manuscripts submitted to journals and publishers is the most fundamental one.

    “Peer reviews are applied in many different contexts, of which peer assessments of manuscripts submitted to journals and publishers probably is the most fundamental one.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Peer-review comparison is assigned to the wrong section

    Minor

    The overview says comparisons between citation indicators and peer review are examined in "Understanding Citations," but the paper introduces that comparison in "Validation Studies."

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 132 references

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. Biagioli M., Gaming Metrics. Beyond Publish or Perish: Metrics and the new Ecologies of Academic Misconduct
  2. Carlsson H., 2009, InfoTrend, 64, 82
  3. Dymond L. H., 2015, A recent history of recognized economic thought—Contributions of the Nobel laureates to economic science
  4. Garfield E., 1977, Essay of an information scientist, 1, 84
  5. Gulbrandsen J. M., 2000, Research quality and organisational factors: An investigation of the relationship
  6. Higher Education Funding Council for England. (2015). The metric tide: Correlation analysis of REF2014 scores and metrics: Supplementary report II to the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. Retrieved from www.dcscience.net/2015_metrictideS2.pdf
  7. Langfeldt L., Scordato L. (2015, April). Assessing the broader impacts of research: A review of methods and practices (NIFU Working Paper 8/2015). Oslo.
  8. le Pair C, 1995, International Forum on Information and Documentation, 20, 16
  9. Luukkonen T., 1990, Citations in the rhetorical, reward, and communication systems of science
  10. Merton R. K., 1979, Citation indexing—Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities
  11. Smith L. C., 1981, Library Trends, 30, 83
  12. van Raan A. F. J, 2000, The web of knowledge: A Festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield, 301
  13. Welljams-Dorof A., 1997, Evaluating science and scientists: An East-West dialogue on research evaluation in post-communist Europe, 202
  14. Wouters P. (1999b). The citation culture (Doctoral thesis). University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/wouters/wouters.pdf
  15. Wouters P., Handbook of science policy studies

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Aksnes, D. W., Langfeldt, L., & Wouters, P.
Affiliations
  • Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education (NO)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Aksnes, Dag W.
Venue
Sage Open
Published
2019-01
Volume
9
Issue
1
ISSN
2158-2440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2913788248
Cited by
1,257
References
132
Citations by year
2026: 153 · 2025: 207 · 2024: 223 · 2023: 202 · 2022: 181 · 2021: 177 · 2020: 89 · 2019: 23
FWCI
78.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • SAGE Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Norges Forskningsråd (256223)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
citation, citation metrics, research quality, research evaluation, research funding, scientific impact, originality, social values, plausibility, science policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review