OBJECTIVE To systematically map the factors associated with citation rates, to categorize the types of studies evaluating these factors and to obtain an overall status of citation bias in scientific health literature. METHODS A scoping review was reported following the PRISMA scoping review extension checklist. Four electronic databases were searched, and the reference-lists of all included articles were screened. Empirical meta-research studies reporting any source of predictors of citation rates and/or citation bias within health care were included. Data are presented by descriptive statistics such as frequencies, portions, and percentages. RESULTS A total of 165 studies were included. Fifty-four distinct factors of citation rates were evaluated in 786 quantitative analyses in included studies. Regardless using the same basic methodological approach to calculate citation rate, 78 studies (48%) aimed to examined citation bias, whereas 79 studies (48%) aimed to optimizing article characteristics to enhance authors' own citation rates. The remaining seven studies (4%) analysed infrastructural characteristics at publication level to make all studies more accessible. CONCLUSIONS Seventy-nine of the 165 included studies (48%) explicitly recommended modifying paper characteristics-such as title length or author count-to boost citations rather than prioritizing scientific contribution. Such recommendations may conflict with principles of scientific integrity, which emphasize relevance and methodological rigor over strategic citation practices. Given the high proportion of analyses identifying a significant increase in citation rates, publication bias cannot be ruled out. CONCLUSIONS Why was the study done? Within scientific research, it is important to cite previous research. This is done for specific reasons, including crediting earlier authors and providing a credible and trustworthy background for conducting the study. However, findings suggest that citations are not always chosen for their intended purpose. This is known as citation bias.