Comment by tokai

Google Scholar citation numbers are unreliable and and cannot be used in bibliometric evaluation. They are auto generated and are not limited to the journal literature. This critique is completely unserious. At the same time bad papers also tend to get more citations on average than middling papers, because they are cited in critiques. This effect should be even larger in a dataset that includes more than the citations from journal papers. This blog post will in time also add to the Google Scholar citation count.

Citation studies are problematic and can and their use should be criticized. But this here is just warm air build on a fundamental misunderstanding of how to measure and interpret citation data.