HI @Mc_ !

Nice question!  I am not sure if you can call me an ex-physicist, or a recovering physicist (or maybe it’s a both a moniker and a scar for life?) but I used to struggle with questions like this a lot.

From what I understand, whether to cite something is very domain-specific and journal-specific.

The guideline that I always used was: was the tool a unique and indispensable part of the research, and especially, would other people need that specific tool to reproduce the results?  In the case of my research, things like XY-plots or scatter-plots are ubiquitous and there are tons of tools, and they will all give the same answer; so I would not cite them, nor would anyone expect a citation. For some plots such as network diagrams, the results may depend on the tool - and in that case I would cite the tool, even if its purpose was just to diagram something.

But if a tool was indispensable for research, then a citation would be appropriate. For example, about 100km from me, and quite a few meters underground, the CERN folks smash their atoms together and then use specific software (ROOT, Geant4, maybe VisIt) to draw diagrams - and because these apps are essential for recreating the data, they would get cited. Or, there are specific tools that actually request their users to cite them; the file format HDF used to be in this category but not sure if it still is.

Not sure if that helps?

Good luck!

Ken

PS. When I think about it, the only risk I see of citing something that perhaps does not deserve a citation is personal embarrassment in front of one’s peers. :-)  And certainly NOBODY objects to being cited. :-)