I rarely cite it, I fact I can't remember doing so more than once or twice.
People cite it because it is:
(A) Referenced and you can check the references
(B) easy to find.
There is no point in citing "Nature" at you because:
(A) You probably do not know what it is and even if you do,
(B) you need a subscription to read it on-line, it is a paid site and not cheap.
The magazine shops where you live almost certainly do not stock it and you would have to go to a library to find it. If you had a subscription to the paper magazine or to the on-line version then you would not be asking questions about evolution on Y!A. If you knew enough to go looking for it in a library you probably would not be asking questions about evolution on Y!A.
The same goes for other relevant primary sources such as PNAS, J Biol Chemistry, Comptes Rendues, J Biology, Nucleic Acids Research, Trends in Biotechnology and hundreds of other primary sources. If you had more than a passing familiarity with these you would not be asking questions about evolution on Y!A.
Want a textbook? Try " A Handbook of Molecular Cloning" from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, or how about "The Molecular Biology of the Gene". Or what about "Man and the vertebrates" by A. S. Romer, first published 1933?
Here's something you are obvously smart enough to do yourself.
I include a link to the patent search page of the USPTO. In one box you can use inventor names to find details of patent applications not yet granted since 2001. In the other you can find inventor names for patents granted since then. A similar service is offered by the European patent office, the World Intellectual Property Organisation and in fact most patent offices round the world.
Now how many leading creationists can you think of? Duane Gish, Ken Ham, Carl "Footprints" Baugh, John Morris, Michael Behe, Henry Morris and there are likely a dozen more. Why don't you find out from these patent offices just how many patents these leading creation scientists have applied for in the past 9 or more years? It's free. How many did you find? Is the John Morris with the herbicides the creationist John Morris or someone else?
Now why would it be that they don't apply or don't get patents on the results of their creation research? Do patent applications have to mention evolution? Nope. To get a patent application you have to have something that looks like applying for a patent with, since patents are not handed out cheaply like toys in MacDonald's franchises. They cost a few thousand dollars even if you do most of the legal work yourself. To have a new invention you have to do research and - - Aha, there it is. They don't do any of that.