This paper reviews studies on citing behavior to determine the extent to which scientists cite publications not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of peers but also for other, possibly non-scientific reasons. The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005, including approximately 30 studies on citing behavior, reporting results in about 40 publications. The findings indicate that citing behavior is not solely motivated by the desire to acknowledge intellectual influences, as other factors, including non-scientific ones, also play a role. However, the studies vary widely in design and methodology, and their results are not consistently replicable. The paper also discusses the limitations of citation counts as measures of scientific impact, noting that factors such as time, field, journal, article, author/reader, and availability can influence citation rates. Theoretical approaches to citing behavior include the normative theory, which views citations as a form of intellectual credit, and the social constructivist view, which emphasizes the social and rhetorical aspects of citing. Empirical studies show that citations are often used to support arguments, provide background, or establish credibility. However, the reliability of citation counts as indicators of scientific impact is questioned due to the influence of various factors. The paper concludes that while citation counts can reflect some aspects of scientific impact, they are not a comprehensive measure and should be used with caution.This paper reviews studies on citing behavior to determine the extent to which scientists cite publications not only to acknowledge intellectual and cognitive influences of peers but also for other, possibly non-scientific reasons. The review covers research published from the early 1960s up to mid-2005, including approximately 30 studies on citing behavior, reporting results in about 40 publications. The findings indicate that citing behavior is not solely motivated by the desire to acknowledge intellectual influences, as other factors, including non-scientific ones, also play a role. However, the studies vary widely in design and methodology, and their results are not consistently replicable. The paper also discusses the limitations of citation counts as measures of scientific impact, noting that factors such as time, field, journal, article, author/reader, and availability can influence citation rates. Theoretical approaches to citing behavior include the normative theory, which views citations as a form of intellectual credit, and the social constructivist view, which emphasizes the social and rhetorical aspects of citing. Empirical studies show that citations are often used to support arguments, provide background, or establish credibility. However, the reliability of citation counts as indicators of scientific impact is questioned due to the influence of various factors. The paper concludes that while citation counts can reflect some aspects of scientific impact, they are not a comprehensive measure and should be used with caution.