On citation ethics and other topics from the "white paper" on "publication ethics [sic]"

Philosopher Mohan Matthen (Toronto) writes:

It seemed that one aim of the White Paper exercise was to widen the scope of ethical concern, whether or not the authors were searching for vindication of the petitioners’ behaviour re Tuvel (though at times it was hard to resist the impression that this exactly was the aim.) But they were out of luck. The focus groups just wouldn’t take the bait. They just wouldn’t spontaneously say that there’s a natural place for ethnic or gender identity in publishing ethics. 

So, the main result was some spectacularly silly remarks about citation practices—e.g., excessive self-citation could be construed as misconduct, one editor said. (As if you could retract a paper on these grounds!) I have to say that I find some of the views on citation that people float for serious discussion are really crazy, “inclusive citation” for example. The ethics of citation in our discipline have, for a very long time, been that you must cite people who explicitly, and more or less uniquely, hold or reject views you discuss. Additionally, citation provides sources of further information. (That’s one reason why there is less citation in philosophy than in the sciences: there is less “further information.”) It’s never been the norm that you should discuss everybody who holds tangentially related views. But now, it seems, citation has come to be viewed not as a means of acknowledging priority, but as a practice that bestows fame, and the argument seems to be that fame should be an equal-opportunity commodity. What else could justify the guideline like that your citation list must include at least two women, at least one of whom is cited for her views on somebody who isn’t male? I find this preoccupation faintly (actually more than faintly) ridiculous. Philosophy and fame don’t really belong in the same thought (unless, of course, a negation is thrown in).

Out of curiosity, I looked up some papers by members of the advisory board. I didn’t get the impression of great generosity. I didn’t always find two women cited (excluding self-citations). Most importantly, I found that in many cases, there were restrictions on the areas thought relevant to the topic under discussion.  Now, to be clear, I don’t object to this. But I don’t see why it isn’t just a different, though equally insidious (or equally harmless), version of the “Is it philosophy?” question.