  The scientific community discourages authors of research papers from citing
papers that did not influence them. Such "rhetorical" citations are assumed to
degrade the literature and incentives for good work. While a world where
authors cite only substantively appears attractive, we argue that mandating
substantive citing may have underappreciated consequences on the allocation of
attention and dynamism in scientific literatures. We develop a novel
agent-based model in which agents cite substantively and rhetorically. Agents
first select papers to read based on their expected quality, read them and
observe their actual quality, become influenced by those that are sufficiently
good, and substantively cite them. Next, agents fill any remaining slots in the
reference lists by (rhetorically) citing papers that support their narrative,
regardless of whether they were actually influential. By turning rhetorical
citing on-and-off, we find that rhetorical citing increases the correlation
between quality and citations, increases citation churn, and reduces citation
inequality. This occurs because rhetorical citing redistributes some citations
from a stable set of elite-quality papers to a more dynamic set with
high-to-moderate quality and high rhetorical value. Increasing the size of
reference lists, often seen as an undesirable trend, amplifies the effects. In
sum, rhetorical citing helps deconcentrate attention and makes it easier to
displace incumbent ideas, so whether it is indeed undesirable depends on the
metrics used to judge desirability.
