Abstract :
In this study scientists were asked about their own publication
history and their citation counts. The study
shows that the citation counts of the publications
correspond reasonably well with the authors’ own assessments
of scientific contribution. Generally, citations
proved to have the highest accuracy in identifying either
major or minor contributions. Nevertheless, according
to these judgments, citations are not a reliable indicator
of scientific contribution at the level of the individual
article. In the construction of relative citation indicators,
the average citation rate of the subfield appears to be
slightly more appropriate as a reference standard than
the journal citation rate. The study confirms that review
articles are cited more frequently than other publication
types. Compared to the significance authors attach
to these articles they appear to be considerably
“overcited.” However, there were only marginal differences
in the citation rates between empirical, methods,
and theoretical contributions
