Certainly correct, if that were the only measure. However, as a matter of simple logic, the converse is surely true.
Namely, any "theory" that lacks any journal citations after a reasonable lenght of time can certainly be dismissed.
Any theory which lacks journal citations was dismissed by the reviewers before it gained any general consideration.
This does not mean the reviewers were correct, just that they controlled what went into print.
A geomorphologist I know ran into this problem, after finding permafrost polygons on White Butte in North Dakota (Highest point in the State). Not an unexpected item, considering that the Continental Ice Sheets stopped not far from there. His paper, with evidence, was summarily dismissed "because there are no permafrost polygons in North Dakota".
The application of circular reasoning by reviewers is all that is necessary to halt science in its tracks. The continued application of circular reasoning will ensure that an idea, hypothesis, or theory will not get exposed to the processes of scientific debate which will verify or refute the premises therein.
Science can be just as dogmatic as religion, any day.
We, as scientists have nothing to lose by hashing issues out but our prejudices and time, and nothing to gain but the answers to the questions we pursue--but only if we have not wed ourselves irrevocably to a specific theory, and instead to the pursuit of truth.
If we were faced tomorrow with incontravertible, readily verifiable evidence that new species came out of a workshop in the hollow core of the Earth, there having been constructed by green elves with purple polka dots, that would be no skin off of my hindparts one way or the other. Those who would suffer most are those who have built their entire careers on other theories who could not, would not, admit they were off the mark.
I am glad my area of expertise yields far more immediate results: either the well produces oil or it does not. If not, why didn't the model work? (Just to help get it right next time.)
I have even been in situations where data predicted structural highs and none were present--but the well produced nonetheless. Having recognized that the false expectation of structural highs yielded a positive indicator for the presence of producible hydrocarbons, I got the president of the company to reconsider revamping the seismic processing, because we were finding oil even if we were not finding the structures which were supposed to be there, and that is what we were there for.