The Noisy Path from Source to Citation: Measuring How Scholars Engage with Past Research
This work addresses the issue for scholars and evaluators by revealing systematic distortions in citation practices, highlighting limitations of raw citation counts, though it is incremental in quantifying existing concerns.
The study tackled the problem of variability in citation fidelity, measuring how accurately citing papers represent original claims, and found that fidelity is higher when citing recent, accessible papers with specific author characteristics, and that low fidelity leads to a 'telephone effect' reducing future fidelity.
Academic citations are widely used for evaluating research and tracing knowledge flows. Such uses typically rely on raw citation counts and neglect variability in citation types. In particular, citations can vary in their fidelity as original knowledge from cited studies may be paraphrased, summarized, or reinterpreted, possibly wrongly, leading to variation in how much information changes from cited to citing paper. In this study, we introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale. Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers, and applies supervised models to measure fidelity at the sentence level. Analyzing a large-scale multi-disciplinary dataset of approximately 13 million citation sentence pairs, we find that citation fidelity is higher when authors cite papers that are 1) more recent and intellectually close, 2) more accessible, and 3) the first author has a lower H-index and the author team is medium-sized. Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original. Our work reveals systematic differences in citation fidelity, underscoring the limitations of analyses that rely on citation quantity alone and the potential for distortion of evidence.