Critically Thinking About “Citing Up”

I came across an interesting social media post recently in preparation for a professional skills development workshop that I was presenting. The post discussed how academics tend to “cite up” in terms of referencing older, more famous scholars relative to more junior researchers. I thought about this proposition in light of my own citation strategies and knowledge of bibliometrics and concluded that this statement is likely true, but probably not for any explicit bias against junior researchers, as some might posit.

First and foremost, we must consider the purpose of citing research—to represent a source of evidence and indicate that someone didn’t just make up what they’re saying. It’s been established in previous work, and we pay that research kudos to further our argument in context. References are also useful for “cutting a long story short”—one can cite another’s work that can more fully explain a concept without having to reiterate the whole thing. When I use a reference in my arguments, given that I’m trying to convince the reader of my point, I want to use the most credible source(s) that I can find.

Possible reasons for “citing up”

If Author A is at the apex of credible sources in the field, I’m going to cite them where appropriate. Indeed, if I was reviewing a relevant paper and didn’t see Author A cited, I might be concerned. Of course, one can include multiple citations, but perhaps the reason why more junior or early career researchers are not cited (relative to the Author As out there) is that other researchers may not be as familiar with the early career researchers”—Author Es’—research.

Maybe the citing researcher remembers the research but not the name of the author. Obviously, Author E’s work hasn’t seemed to “stick” yet, maybe because they’re yet to make a bigger impact in the field. Sure, that’s largely the citing researcher’s issue for not having better organized their reading and note-taking, but simply, it’s also an issue of accessibility. If a researcher can’t remember Author E’s name in this context, the credibility of Author A will more than suffice. “Citing up” is not a slight here; it’s just that Author E’s contribution might not be that impactful, accessible, or memorable to a more established researcher. Moreover, I must admit there might be a level of laziness here.

For example, the scenario above is context-dependent. If I can’t remember Author E, that’s fine; I have Author A to cite. However, if Author E is the only appropriate citation, the citing strategy will change. If I know a claim is fundamental to my rationale but I can’t remember where it came from, despite knowing I’ve seen solid evidence for it in the past, I will search for Author E’s paper until I find it (because I have to if there’s no Author A to rely on). This might take time and effort.

I can imagine that some researchers will be reading this and thinking, “Surely, others are reading the new literature and taking notes as they go along or maybe even writing the rationale as they engage the new literature.” Ideally, this should be the case; indeed, it’s a handy way of keeping up-to-date with the literature. However, this does not always happen.

I imagine more established researchers in a field are “familiar enough” with it to write a rationale without having to look up papers every few lines and, instead, are more likely to write what they know. Such is human nature. When they eventually get some free time, they might dedicate a few hours to reading recently published papers. I’m also aware that some researchers are better at this than others. Obviously, this is worrying in the realm of research—perhaps more worrying altogether than the issue of “citing-up.”

With that, what are the chances that a researcher has read every paper in their field? Slim-to-none. Given the exponential increase in the amount of information available to people in the past 25 years and, likewise, the increase in the amount of Ph.D. degrees awarded and research being conducted, being up-to-date with all work in a field just isn’t feasible.

So, maybe “lazy” is unfair in context. Maybe these researchers are indeed reading as much as they can, but because the amount that’s feasible is finite relative to the seemingly endless new research that’s coming out, they might be “pickier” in what they read; for example, prioritizing known and credible researchers in their field. So, there’s a good chance that when only Author A is cited regarding a particular finding, it’s quite possible that it’s because the citing researcher has never even heard of Author E’s paper, let alone read it.

Career Essential Reads

The Problem With Purpose

Getting Write Down to It: Passion and Purpose in Writing

Takeaways for early-career researchers

“New” papers—regardless of when and by whom they’re read, need “sticking power,” and by that, I mean that the research is well-conducted: It is well-written, and interesting food for thought is provided. I compile and read new papers every month—maybe one per session has any sticking power—and that’s not because I’m some kind of research snob; rather, it’s the case that much of it failed some of the criteria above. With that, if the paper had well-conducted research, was well-written, and provided either something novel or some food for thought, then regardless of familiarity, this paper (and its author) would be on my radar for the future. So, just as much as older researchers may be set in their bibliographies or “lazy” referencing, it is most definitely up to younger researchers to publish impactful work.

I completely understand how this is frustrating for early career researchers. I was there once, too. Even though it’s been well over 10 years since I received my Ph.D., I still find myself trying to make the aforementioned impact necessary to be considered one of those “A” researchers in the field. Of course, I get annoyed when I see missed opportunities for other researchers to cite my work. But I’m realistic enough to recognize that maybe they have not come across my work, I have not made a large enough impact for it to be noticed, or the research they did cite was sufficient to make their point. I don’t take it personally, and neither should young researchers. Their time will come, but they must be patient.

Consider the research by Morris, Wooding, and Grant (2011), where it was suggested that it takes approximately 17 years on average for health research implementation from “bench to bedside.” That’s a long time for “research to be realized.” I know citations are different and should be more visible quicker in the land of research, but the same logic applies. Patience—and continued hard work (i.e., to advance one’s research acumen)—are necessary for citation success.

Again, I don’t think that “citing up” is consciously done to slight early career academics; researchers are not conspiring against their junior colleagues—at least, not in my field. If anything, they want to see them and their field flourish. Instead, I think it’s more likely that this issue boils down to an implicit bias (which we all face on a day-to-day basis) toward what we know as familiar, accessible, and credible.