Logically, and by most common standards, academics would be pleased to be cited, considering it a form of recognition of their intellect. In return, especially those with high citation counts, such as Clarivate Analytics’ Highly Cited Researchers, can benefit through peer recognition, rewards, funding, securing a better position, or expanding a collaborative network. Despite known and untold benefits, one issue has not been discussed: the right to refuse to be cited or the right to refuse a citation. Academics might not want to be cited by papers published in truly predatory journals, papers with false authors, or sting papers with falsified elements that employ underhanded ethical tactics. Currently, academics generally have the freedom to select where they publish their findings and choose studies they cite, so it is highly probable that requests to remove citations or refuse citations might never become formal publishing policy. Nonetheless, this academic discussion is worth having as valid and invalid literature increasingly gets mixed through citations, and as the grey zone between predatory/non-predatory and scholarly/unscholarly becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.

从逻辑上讲，按照最常见的标准，学者们会很高兴被引用，认为这是对他们才智的一种认可。作为回报，特别是那些引用次数较多的研究人员，例如 Clarivate Analytics 的高被引研究人员，可以通过同行认可、奖励、资助、确保更好的位置或扩大协作网络而受益。尽管有已知和不为人知的好处，但尚未讨论一个问题：拒绝被引用的权利或拒绝被引用的权利。学者们可能不希望被发表在真正掠夺性期刊上的论文、虚假作者的论文或采用不正当道德策略的带有虚假成分的刺痛论文引用。目前，学者们通常可以自由选择他们在哪里发表他们的发现并选择他们引用的研究，因此，删除引用或拒绝引用的请求很可能永远不会成为正式的出版政策。尽管如此，这种学术讨论还是值得进行的，因为有效和无效的文献越来越多地通过引用混合在一起，并且掠夺性/非掠夺性和学术/非学术之间的灰色地带变得越来越难以区分。