A field becomes intellectually durable not when it is merely named, nor even when its concepts circulate, but when citation connects local usefulness to a recognisable architecture of authorship, theory and evidence; the central problem for Socioplastics is therefore not simply how to be cited, but how each act of citation can preserve the relation between operator, field, author, framework and canonical record without overburdening the reader or dissolving conceptual precision into branding. Academic citation has always performed more than one task at once: it acknowledges intellectual debt, permits verification, locates a claim within a genealogy and distributes authority across a community of texts. Yet these functions become more complex when the object being cited is not a single proposition or book but a multiscalar field composed of operators, essays, nodes, datasets, persistent records and an encompassing grammar. To cite Socioplastics only as a general field risks obscuring the specific mechanism being used; to cite only the operator risks detaching it from the conceptual environment that gives it precision; to cite only Anto Lloveras risks reducing a relational system to personal authorship; and to cite only a DOI may guarantee retrieval while leaving the intellectual structure invisible. The most coherent solution is not to choose one level, but to establish a hierarchy in which each scale performs a distinct citational function.