Self-citation is seen as a form of self-promotion, and thus looked down on it in academia, so why do we still do it? Are we obliged to do it due to the fierce competition in academia?
If it makes sense to cite your own work if you paper is based on some previously published paper (e.g. you use the same survey evidence but some other parts of the survey, then you do not have to explain again in detail how you collected the data), if your work is in some sense original/unique/very significant in this field (e.g. if your previous paper was among the first on this topic) and, to some extent, it is also ok to advertise your work. It would be strange to cite your own 10 papers if they do not fit with your new paper (then the reviewers will also most probably guess who you are), but it is ok to cite a couple of your papers if one of the above explanations applies.
Good response from Tiia. It would depend, of course, on what the original question by Rafael, means 'fair'. It's fair if your cited work is representative of the exact topic area, informs it, expands it - and is not forced into the 'equation' just for the sake of it. Self-promotion is fine under these conditions. I've often argued, sometimes in my case, if 'you are one of the influential authors in your field and not many other authors are publishing in that field - then who else are you going to cite'?
I agree whit previous responses from Dean and Tiia. But, It is better use less papers, for example 1 or 2.
Megan - good call and useful to bring this to light. However, the phenomenon you refer to is more on a 'corporate' and editorial 'conspiracy' level and, from what the link reports, I think that ISI etc will be onto this now - and checking closely for journal competition and manipulation. A related issue to be wary of, as an author, is when a journal editor, as part of an acceptance condition, states that you should cite their journal more in your citation list.
The barriers of entry for new journals are high, the main one is indexation, only a few could do it, but at a high cost and after many years fighting with content and reviewers. I understand some editors going mad about it.
Rafael - could you just elaborate a little on what you specifically mean by indexation?
Dean
I mean being indexed/listed in relevant and pursued journal repositories/DB such us WoK, Scopus, EBSCOHost or DOAJ; in regional ones, like Latindex or Indian Science Abstract; or specialists in fields of knowledge, such as Econlit, Medline or BioAbstracts.
Rafael - many thanks for the clarification. I see what you mean - levels of competition. - mean that some journals and editors will try all sorts of tricks to either 'inflate' themselves or get into the 'indexing club'.
Hi Rafael, I think your question should be about the abuse of self citation, which is clearly wrong. However, I would agree with Tiia and Dean that some self citation is both right and inevitable. I would add that you need to think of the reader for two reasons: 1) if they are interested in you and your ideas they will need a clue to find out what else you have written on the topic that is of interest and 2) the bibliography is a road map for the reader to find more about the topic of the article. It should lead logically to a better understanding of the topic filtered through the eyes of you, the expert/author. That would include some of your own work which informs or underpins your area of expertise.
Self promotion is used here in a pejorative, or negative way. Some self promotion is inevitable too in a profession that relies on publication. My advice is at least to put your self in the way of being found. Check your Scopus profile and make sure it is upto date. Contact them and correct it if it isn't. Register for ResearcherID and for your ORCID [ orcid.org ] and use it as an identifier. If you include it in publications all your work can be found. BW Matt
Matt - good response. One more thing that I've thought of. When you see self-citation within an article - look to the quality and calibre of those citations. I have to admit that earlier in my publishing career, I was very guilty of self- citation for 'the sake of it'. It was more a case of either 'look at me and what I have done' and/or 'if no-one else is going to cite me, then I had better do it myself'. I would include 'all and eveything' - even things like book reviews. Nowadays, I still cite my own work - but not always and, when I do, I'm far more 'selective' about what I include.
Citing your own work means that you have continued with the research activity. No harm unless you use it judiciously.
Now i am in my early stages of research-I give my own experience
I had done a work on Antimicrobial resistance, the i worked on carbapenemase. I have intentionally added sentences to include my work which was observed by the expert reviewer and was then removed
Self-citation was not a problem for a long time. There are differences according to disciplines and along time in the definition of what is "fair". This is one of the social rules governing the human side of research. For instance, in geography in France, it was considered "unfair" to cite your own work in the text, but also not correct to hide your work to your readers as Matt explained: hence a compromise, where one could add one or two self-citations in the reference list after reviewing and before publishing; and these were not called in the text. However, technical and political means are changing the problem.
The technical side is that computers are able to collect citations from academic papers and then build indexes and all kind of measures. But they are very limited indeed.
The political side is that organizations and administrations started to rely on these measures to give value to a huger and huger mass of research papers and to value their authors.
The bias comes from this switch, in my opinion, because the technical means are quite insufficient to give a fair reflection of citations count. First, automatic coverage of academic papers is narrow. As an example, social sciences are very neglected. Then, many languages are merely not handled, and research swept out of visibility. Last, computers are very bad at detecting self citations.To react to biased coverage, individuals may be tempted to try and distort the rules to get some visibility.
We are in a situation where a student who is used to indexes like Matt cited above, may appear hugely cited when the senior directing his work is not (old papers not being indexed and so on). The social regulation is not working yet in many communities, because many do not understand the biases induced by computer citations counts. Some efforts are being exerted in medicine where citation count have a huge impact.
By the way, I just saw that RG automatically added two citations to my citation count that were referring to previous papers by the same team (mine). That is why I posted here! What do you think?
Hi Nadine, you make some good points here. Language bias is not appreciated by those who normally write in English neither is the effect of inaccurate citation. The effect you might think you have by deliberately inflating your citations through excessive self citation can be negated by circumstances which you don't control. My recollection is that Science Citation Index goes back to the early 50's. As citation is cumulative then older scholars shouldn't be disadvantaged for their longevity, but as you say, other factors are at play.
I wouldn't worry about the RG Citation Metric. I think it has some way to go before it has any credibility. I find I am cited in a paper published 4 years before my paper was published. No amount of communication with RG can persuade them to get rid of it!
Something that I appreciate more now than ever is the need to have unique ID's incorporated in citation styles to assist the accurate automatic identification of papers i.e. DOI's and Author IDs. Wouldn't it be great if you could just submit a list of references as Author ID's and DOI's and get the publisher to download the information from the net and output in their own house style. BW http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8389-0154
Hello
Interesting discussion
Well, while there is nothing wrong with citing your own work especially to record your previous research in this area... it is OVER citing yourself that might be a problem... best having a balance.
Woooow Matt 'I find I am cited in a paper published 4 years before my paper was published' - this is a real worry.
Regards
Theodora Issa
As long as the citing of your work is relevant to the new publication, I would think it advisable.
Madelaine,
I agree with that - as you cannot build up your future ideas on your own research without being able to mention where the ideas came from... :-)
Once again - one warning - do not OVER cite!
Happy publishing...
Regards
Theodora Issa
If it's related. I personally think that if you are building a strand of work, that's it's important to show how the work has evolved and where it has come from, but you would randomly put in your work that isn't related
I know that some of you may not agree with me, but it is a common practice and totally acceptable in research to cite your own previous work. Its not just a matter of self-promotion, but also an expedient to which the researcher resort in order not to say again subtopics he/she have already dealt with extensively in his previous work, of course as long as the researcher is making balance !!
Sorry, I arrived late to this interesting topic. As a reviewer and an editor I agree with many that balance is important. Cite your own work in order to link the current paper with previous papers on the same research. Do avoid citing everything you have written in the broad field. It isn't always straightforward however- I had a snarky comment from one reviewer that s/he was sick of reading Author(date) in my paper. I politely explained that I was one of very few writing in this area and that I had cited all the other two relevant papers. I did cut down the in-text references after the feedback.
Just one more comment- please don't forget to make your self-citations anonymous in the text and references e.g. Author(2010) , this includes not listing the title of your paper in the references. Some journals will ask you to check this, others will assume you will do it. Of course this would not be necessary with open reviewing but that is another topic.
CITE if really required and necessary, not just forcefully do it as DR LIZ had rightly said. I my self tried to insert my own citation just for the sake. It was asked by the reviewer to better remove.
Its worthy to cite good work done earlier....both for author and journals ......
Citing ones own paper is just a coincidence in case of researcher who select and work in a particular confined are of research., eg., researcher working on a particular microorganism, Staphylococcus aureus a single bacterium
In general, I try to follow the kind of reasoning so well summarized by Tiia. Perhaps, in the field of the normal (in the Kuhnian sense) natural sciences, favoring the structure Introduction-Methods-Results-Discussion may help - to some extent, of course - to situate your own work amid others (this is not to say self citation is not current in this field). Other than self citation, circular citations within groups of allied researchers and superficial citing (generally made just to emphasize the importance of our research area) are also questionable.
PS perhaps the two most difficult texts I've ever written did not include references to my papers or personal research results. It was very fun to write them, but I felt at loss because the level of argumentation required a really great effort.
Moderation is always the key... so, do not over do it or under do it! But, the main issue is not to ignore a good research because this was yours and you do not want to self-promote! that would be a grave mistake.
Regards
Theodora Issa
The main reason I cite my work is to shorten my reference sections, which tend to be too long, since I do documental research and use information from many sources, even in a relatively short paper. I also tend to build on earlier publications. With one self-citation I can sometimes avoid including dozens of references.
Research is a continuous process. every researcher has a few selected line of research on which he/she publishes. so most of the times, your previous works appear to be the most relevant references for the next publication. If really so, no harm in citing your own previous papers. Self citations are looked down upon when they are not at all relevant; If you find your previous works unavoidably relevant to your next publication, do cite them. it will enhance your reputation as a researcher in that particular line of research.
Self citation is justified if your new work is based on the foundations laid in a previous paper. For example if similar methodologies were used on another species or genus or set of populations, then it will shorten the new paper considerably if you just cite the previous paper in the methodology section of your new paper.
Self citation is not a crime, and depending on the paper demands if is needed must be done, and if you are an expert then naturally it will be done, comparatively in review papers it can be seen much but not in research papers
If the methodology of research work is similar then self citation can be definitely done. Moreover, it also shows the command of the researcher to perform such kind of research activities and is an expression of his/ her experience.
A relevant citation placed at correct place should count rather than self or non-self. Cite if necessary and ignore all other things
Is there a limit to number of references one can cite of own previously published work while writing an editorial?
Citations cannot be manipulated, but if you have a paper on a particular subject you want to cite instead of finding papers of other authors with similar content you can cite your paper-why not.
But we should be ethical enough to do the same and not try to create subject to just increase citations.
I tried the same once and was negated by reviewer.
It is a normal progression generally speaking to be citing your own works as you progress as a researcher. You may even criticize your own works from years before. As we grow in the field of science, we see what we missed years before. If you can do this, it is best to look at any work you have done related to the topic being written about objectively, like any other researchers contribution. Sometimes what you wrote fits is nicely to show the progression of science. I'm writing an article that describes a research study done years ago requiring long term memory on the part of the healthcare professionals. I did a study that required a 30 day memory of events from the health care professionals. That was followed by a researcher who went straight to interviewing patients but with a smaller number. Between the three studies, you have sufficient evidence for the incidence of the phenomena and also showing improvement in data collection methods. I'm making the comment in my article being with the patients, whenever possible, is the best collection method.
If it is related to same field and your paper literature will be enhanced based on the citation, than for sure it need to be added. Even if it is related to field, still one or 2 papers can be added but not more than that.
Thanks
If your new work is based on previous papers, can be introduced up to 15% papers but not more!
The same is happening for a journal. No more than 15% self citations from the same journal.
Mr. Barros,
Researchers are of different level, some are having high end resource, some are managing with limited one. There is a huge disparity amongst age as well. I would see it from both perspective categorically,
1) Early stage researchers with limited resource - For them self-citation would be a way to showcase their work to a greater technical audience, to get more opportunities. Although self-citation should be limited to only relevant published work.
2) Early Stage researcher with ample research resources (all aspects) -As they have good resource, labs and guide they can keep a balance with being little selective to self-citation. For noble work and relevant work, no reviewer would mind doing couple of self-citation.
3) Established Researcher - As they already have set a benchmark, self-citation may be given a thought. Unless, the previous work is introducing a new research or something remarkable work, self- citation wont add much value.
It is my person opinion which I think bring some clarity while doing some self-citation.
Is it fair to cite your own previous work when publishing a paper?
It should be fine if it is relevant to your current research. Reviewers / readers can sense if you purposefully cite your own previous work irrelevantly.
There is no problem in citing your published work in your own new paper till it is relevant.
I don't think citing your own previous work in a paper is an unfair practice.
Well, if other authors can appreciate your work through citation, why would you not appreciate your work through citation in your other works provided it is relevant.
I don't see a problem in citing your previous research if it is relevant and your current research builds on your previous research although in the blind peer review you will need to remove any identifying information to ensure a blind peer review
I see the main benefit would be citing your previous research in a higher ranked Quartile journal article would make other academics more aware of your previous research
If it is relevant to the topic, you should cite your work as well, it is not showing off, in other words, not something to hide. However, if you cite unnecessarily, unrelated work, it can be ridicilous.
I think there is no problem in this If the previous works related to current works.
I don't see any problem if the references provided are useful and relevant. Moreover, the Web of Science provide the total number of cites and the number of cites excluding self-citation. Of course, some people might abuse of this practice
Why not? usually, a citation of a research work may point to another relative work done by the same researcher(s), which is useful for many, as I believe.
It is necessary and also correct if the previous papers are related to the current one.
Rafael Hernandez Barros
Check this link, it may help you;
https://blog.scipress.com/posts/the-problem-of-self-citation
If you are building upon your previous research, and the data is related to it, then citing your own work may be a matter of course, and not necessarily self-promotion.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Dear_Experienced_Researchers_Please_can_the_significance_of_Citations_be_shared_with_us_Can_I_as_a_researcher_cite_myself?isAnswerFieldFocused=true
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_self-citation_ethical https://www.researchgate.net/post/Should_self-citations_have_any_value_for_quantifying_the_impact_of_a_publication
If the previous work is related to the present research , then , there is no issue . However , one should limit the frequency of citations , so that it wont be construed as self promotion .
In my oppinion it could be fair to cite your own work because it can show up that you’re duplicating works.. and also it could be useful if it is related to that work.
i think it depends on what paper you are currently writing, if your previous work is a continuation of the current work then its fine, but too much citing can be considers as unethical
Well, it's dependent. In general, if your idea is new or you are pioneering a novel work (regardless small or big), as a continuation of the current work self-citation is justified for upcoming publications. In a nutshell, any contribution to the state-of-the-art or beyond having self-citation is fair. Self-citation should reveal a minimum of the previous work, otherwise can be unethical and can be considered self-plagiarism.
It is normal to cite and to show you are continuing your work.
But your own citations must be under 20%!
If the paper is relevant to the current paper it seems permissible. I agree that your own citations should be less than 20 %.
Your new work may be somehow similar to your previous work. You should provide a clear explanation how it is actually different. Otherwise you risk to be accused in self-plagiarism.
Of course, you can cite your previous work if you think it's relevant.
If the work being taken is extension of previous work or it utilizes the concepts and background of previous works then there is nothing wrong in citing own papers (provided the previous papers are relevant to the context of the paper being written.
Prof. Rafael Hernandez Barros: This is called Self-citation.
Self-citation may be necessary in many cases to complete the research study according to the world's progress. There may be a room for self-citation - but it is a good practice to limit the practice when possible.Therefore, self-citation is a sensitive issue.
On the other hand, "Citation Farms", also known as "Citation Cartels", consist of authors who routinely and enormously self-cite or cite each other for the purpose of raising their citation counters and, in turn, promoting the impact of their publications.
Let me show you this paragraph:
"Self citation. Researchers may need to cite their previously published works in order to communicate an idea effectively in their present manuscript. While IGI Global encourages the use of self citations in these cases, it is important that self-cited works do not account for, at most, 50% of the total references in the manuscript."
Source: https://www.igi-global.com/publish/contributor-resources/before-you-write/
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Research Papers