Abstract
Authors of scientific papers are usually encouraged to cite works that meaningfully influenced their research (substantive citations) and avoid citing works that had no meaningful influence (rhetorical citations). Rhetorical citations are assumed to degrade incentives for good work and benefit prominent papers and researchers. Here, we explore if rhetorical citations have some plausibly positive effects for science and disproportionately benefit the less prominent papers and researchers. We developed a set of agent-based models where agents can cite substantively and rhetorically. Agents first choose papers to read based on their expected quality, become influenced by those that are sufficiently good, and substantively cite them. Next, agents fill any remaining slots in their reference lists with rhetorical citations that support their narrative, regardless of whether they were actually influential. We then turned agents' ability to cite rhetorically on-and-off to measure its effects. Enabling rhetorical citing increased the correlation between paper quality and citations, increased citation churn, and reduced citation inequality. This occurred because rhetorical citing redistributed 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, amplified the effects. Overall, rhetorical citing may help deconcentrate attention and make it easier to displace established ideas.