This would be interesting indeed. But it wouldn't be enough to really appreciate the paper's value. Often times a paper is cited because it is related 'prior wo

This would be interesting indeed. But it wouldn't be enough to really appreciate the paper's value. Often times a paper is cited because it is related 'prior work', even if it's crap. This can happen because a reviewer asks it. Sometimes the reviewer is the crap's author, for instance. Yes, many things are broken about bibliometry and scientific publishing in general.