>undermines the credibility of citing papers That credibility is already undermined by the fact that for citation-measuring purposes, there's no real differenc

>undermines the credibility of citing papers That credibility is already undermined by the fact that for citation-measuring purposes, there's no real difference between any of the following citations: (1) "Introduction. This paper is a journey into the amazing consequences made possible by (Smith et al, 2019)" (2) "Introduction. In this paper we show that (Smith et al, 2019) is a steaming pile of crap" (3) "Footnote. This minor remark is vaguely reminiscent of (Smith et al, 2019)" All contribute the same citation juice to Smith et al, 2019.