Citation politics is about maintaining sameness in academic research.
Caucasian, male, hetrosexual researchers are commonly cited more. Women, LGBTIQA+, people of colour and other minority researchers are cited less. Much less. This has implications for new directions of research and limits what information and ideas feed into new research outputs. Rather than broadly expanding knowledge, new research tends to be limited to a dominant demographic and worldview.
There are other implications too.
For better, or, likely, worse, citations hold sway in academia. They determine scholarly reputation. They identify whose work matters and has significance. They offer prestige in what is clearly a prestige economy. Citations matter (Baker, 2019).
The number of citations an article receives is a common measure of researcher impact. High citation counts give value to research, even if the research is flawed or fraudulent. A 1998 article with over 3,600 citations was retracted from The Lancet for fraudulent research. The article was highly cited because subsequent scholars denounced the work. Even negative citations, if high, get a high profile. The article in question resulted in the undermining of public confidence in vaccines.