Ken A. ThompsonSpent days preparing a citation list of data sources for a meta-analysis. The journal (like @ASNAmNat) allows a second bibliography, “References cited as data sources”. While there is no way I would publish this paper without providing citation credit (via *INDEXED* bibliography), it strikes me that as a field we actively penalize commitment to scholarship. Most glams would never allow this 200+ bibliography and so prioritizing citing sources limits the visibility of one’s own work.
There are a few incentives to cite generously. Many folks get an alert when they are cited, and by citing them via *INDEXED* bib. (that google scholar will see) you notify them about your work. Similarly, if you cite data repositories, these will link to your paper. And generally I think rewarding people with citation incentivizes the production and sharing of data.
José CercaVery good insight from @KenAThompson . Citing broadly (and especially undercited papers) gets the attention of whom you cite 🙃
@NaturalSelection yes! There are a couple of papers from ~10 yrs ago where I have cited 3X for data and now make up a significant fraction of their citations. Many of these authors spent days transcribing/searching for data.
@KenAThompson I think that in a way citations can be seen as a currency. Many papers make the points we need for our introductions (though we need to be aware of nuances). I try to dig some less cited papers from my read pile, too. It makes everyone happy and it is " ethical " ( citation ethics is a very volatile concept).
All this to say I agree with you :)