Abstract:The Web of Science citation indexes were originally intended to serve as research aids, to provide easy-to-use bibliographic aids for authors, help authors identify colleagues who have cited their work, and assist librarians in making selections among journals. But they were soon carried by the tidal waves of scientism and data-ism, first in business management and governance, and then also in scholarly research, to near-monopolistic control of the business of journals evaluation in the United States (though increasingly challenged in some areas by the more recent but similar Scopus citation indexes). With that dominance, earlier tentative generalizations based on limited research gradually became more and more rigidified “laws” that have been strictly enforced: that quality can be scientifically measured by the number of articles that cite the article or a particular journal, and, by extension, that the importance and contribution of a scholar’s article, like that of a journal, can be determined by its “impact factor” measured by counting the number of articles citing it. Those “laws” came to be applied first to the natural sciences, extended to the social sciences, and finally also to major spheres of the arts and humanities. Today, they have come to dominate the entire continuum of disciplines and fields ranging from the most universalist of the natural sciences, in which truths may be established by reproducible experiments, to the more particularist social sciences, and still more particularist arts and humanities, in which theories, even facts, are far more contested and tentative. As we move across the spectrum from the more universalist end of natural sciences toward the more particularist end of the social sciences and arts and humanities, such methods have tended to violate ever more the fundamental nature and realities of scholarly research. However, once entrenched, the citation indexes business has shown the same tendencies as any monopolistic entity toward resisting change and transparency. Where those tendencies have been adopted by a centralized government for bureaucratized control, as in China, the misuses and abuses of citation indexes have been further magnified. This article ends by calling for developing more substantive, genuinely peer-review-based methods of evaluation; for relying more on alternative nonprofit bibliographic and data services; and for greater inclusivity, especially with regard to scholarship in languages other than English.

Science Citation Index data: Two additional reasons against its use for administrative purposes

Citation Indexes: Uses and Misuses

Citation Data and Analysis: Limitations and Shortcomings

[Neutralizing Science Citation Index As an Academic Evaluation System].

The Disadvantages of Using Scientometric Indicators in the Digital Age

Caveats for the Use of Citation Indicators in Research and Journal Evaluations

The Science Citation Index and the Measurement of National Performance in Terms of Numbers of Scientific Publications

The Role of Positive and Negative Citations in Scientific Evaluation

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Errors and secret data in the Italian research assessment exercise. A comment to a reply

On Good and Bad Intentions behind Anomalous Citation Patterns among Journals in Computer Sciences

Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda

Statistics hide impact of non-English journals

Citation Analysis Cannot Legitimate the Strategic Selection of Excellence

Is modern science evolving in the wrong direction?

A Comment to the Paper by Waltman Et Al., Scientometrics, 87, 467–481, 2011

Using Conventional Bibliographic Databases for Social Science Research: Web of Science and Scopus are not the Only Options

The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations

Confirmation Bias and the Open Access Advantage: Some Methodological Suggestions for the Davis Citation Study

What Is Wrong With the Current Evaluative Bibliometrics?

Science for Sale: Fair Evaluation Standards