Citation counts are widely used to measure research impact, but a new study presented at the 10th Peer Review Congress reveals that how citations are distributed across articles or authors often goes overlooked. The popular h-index, while useful, does not capture strategic concentration of citations aimed at artificially boosting perceived influence.
Researchers examined extreme patterns of citation concentration—both small-scale and large-scale—that may distort bibliometric evaluations. These patterns, they argue, warrant further scrutiny to preserve the integrity of research assessment.
The findings highlight a critical gap in current metrics: without accounting for distribution, concentrated citations can misrepresent a researcher's true impact. The study calls for developing indicators that detect such manipulation, ensuring that citation-based evaluations remain fair and accurate.