This is whats done in science evaluation—the H-index for instance is built from a combination of publication and citation counts. Similarly, journal prestige is quantified using the Journal Impact Factor, which aggregates the average number of citation a paper in the journal receives.
As you speculate, these can also be gamed. Authors will cite themselves more to inflate their citations, or form citation carters with other authors to cite each other's work. Similarly, journals have been known to coerce authors to cite other works in the venue, in order to inflate their impact factor. Beyond these, there are issues with comparing citations across disciplines, article type, and other contexts.
> Eventually, pubs are going to start rejecting valid papers for being too incremental.
Many of hte most prestigious journals, such as Science, Nature, and Cell, already do this. However newer Mega-journals, like PLoS, have had explicitly the opposite policy, and state that they accept anything that is "sound science", no matter the size of its contribution; they have however become more selective over time.
As you speculate, these can also be gamed. Authors will cite themselves more to inflate their citations, or form citation carters with other authors to cite each other's work. Similarly, journals have been known to coerce authors to cite other works in the venue, in order to inflate their impact factor. Beyond these, there are issues with comparing citations across disciplines, article type, and other contexts.
> Eventually, pubs are going to start rejecting valid papers for being too incremental.
Many of hte most prestigious journals, such as Science, Nature, and Cell, already do this. However newer Mega-journals, like PLoS, have had explicitly the opposite policy, and state that they accept anything that is "sound science", no matter the size of its contribution; they have however become more selective over time.