Short abstract:

This paper examines how citation practices affected the reception of claims concerning the ‘pro-social’ effects of intranasal oxytocin in humans over the last two decades, both in the initial, explosive phase of growth and in the subsequent controversies over the reliability of the evidence-base.

Long abstract:

Over the last 20 years, a large literature has grown on the apparent ‘pro-social’ actions of intranasal oxytocin (IN-OT) in humans. This interest was spurred by a paper in Nature that reported an effect of IN-OT on interpersonal trust in humans; a paper that quickly become the highest cited paper ever published on oxytocin. It was rapidly joined by several other highly-cited papers that arrived at similarly bold claims. These established IN-OT as a ‘hot topic’, and many papers followed in high-impact journals, strengthening the perception that this was a promising area, with potential utility in treating conditions such as autism, schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders. However, the findings in the original, highly-cited papers proved to be poorly replicable. This has led to controversies that involve issues that exemplify current concern about the reliability of published evidence and the detrimental impacts of ‘hype’. Questions have been raised, for example, over whether any IN-OT actually reaches the brain, about whether assays used to measure oxytocin are valid, about the validity of statistical analyses, and the adequacy of publication practices. This paper analyses the evidence behind claims regarding the social effects of IN-OT, studies how that evidence spread through literature, and how it was described in citing papers via citation network analysis. I aim to understand whether selective citation and other citation distortions shaped understanding of the social effects of OT in human as the literature grew, and how controversies over reliability have affected what evidence is cited and how it is interpreted.