Self citation can help paper reviewers to check on the history of the author(s) and research topics.
Any comment or opinion are welcome.
Thanks
M.M.Noor
Say, you are active in a research field for some time and your present work is often a continuation of previous studies. In such case the author cites own papers. And this is quite obvious. However, in fact, there is a limit of self-citation. And this limit is decency...
Besides self citation, searching with author names also provides reviewers an opportunity to check the history. So self citation is no suggested until the previous works have strong relevance with the current work, for modesty and objectiveness. I believe that the reviewers focus more on the progress of the topic rather than the progress of the author's work.
I think the only purpose is to show the work continuity as you nicely indicated. While some researchers extensively cite themselves and omitting others work. It’s very nice share others outcomes by citation which could build up the subject coverage globally and open wider research plans in the future.
Say, you are active in a research field for some time and your present work is often a continuation of previous studies. In such case the author cites own papers. And this is quite obvious. However, in fact, there is a limit of self-citation. And this limit is decency...
I believe that self-citation can help to advertise your previous publications. If a reader likes your paper, he/she may feel tempted to also read previous work from you. As Lech expressed it very well, there is a limit though. In addition to decency, I believe there is also a limit on the percentage of self-citation on the total number of your citations. If you have more self-citations than real citations it doesn't look good and you are probably doing something wrong ....
Self citation may be good in case, if you are working with your old research or continuing any project.
Self-citation is easy, as we have a good understanding about our own papers.
However, I beleive that all the citations should be selected carefully so as to be relavent to the paper.
Self-citations should not be done only for the pupose of showing authors' history to the reviewers. If they want to check it, they can do it independently.
What is a difference between citation and self-citation? I would separate helpful and misleading citations. If the citation will help to understand the new work it is always good.
Non-proper self-citation would get a critical attention of a reviewers more often then misleading citation of some 'political works'. Citation of non-original works is even more problematic... Some times it is a question of decency, some times it is a question of scientific culture and of the background in the topic.
Self-citation is not good or bad by itself of course. It should be used when is strictly necessary to show previous related work with the current one, however sometimes it can be seen the use of series of citations to the authors themselves without any aim rather than get more citations.
I fully agree with previous comments about decency is key to deal with not only self-citations but also with citations in general.
Citations has gotten too much credit as a measure of quality and impact of a publication. This should be changed. Even if someone strongly criticizes a work, he has no choice except to cite that work as a matter of clarity in referencing.
At the same time, reviewers should ask authors to not only to cite but also to thoroughly compare their new work with already-published related papers, whether those work are from the same authors or not.
It is normal to cite our previous publication if it is relevant and showing the continuity of the research works. Normally if we have self citation only one or two while the whole reference list 25.
to me cited your self as when you need to raised statement which related to your research is normal. No problem at all, and it doesnt means that you want raised your points or others
A few self-citations are natural since we tend to publish on related topics. However, if self-citations exceed 50%, this indicates to me that either the only person interested in the topic is the author or that they are omitting important contributions by others. Either way, such a paper generally is not an interesting read.
Self-citations can be good as many have said before, but only in good moderation of course. The main motivation should be relevance to the point discussed rather than merely increasing your number of citations. In reading papers, I find that some authors often "stretch" this principle. However, such instances are pretty easily detected when reading a paper, and unfortunately I then tend to not lend as much credibility to these authors. So exaggerations in self-citations are really not a good idea in my opinion.
Another thing that bothers me is when someone is peer-reviewing a manuscript and consistently suggests including his/her paper(s) in your list of citations. Sometimes this is warranted, but sometimes not. Such attempts are again pretty obvious and credibility may be questioned.
A few important Self-citations and Citation of Other Relevant Works add elegance to your publication.
If there is nothing to cite from Literature it becomes the Original Work and the Reviewer has a hard task to evaluate it.
Of late, some journals want citations of works from that particular journal to be included to increase their Impact Factor.
Nowadays a number of Anti-plagiarism softwares are available, some of them Free, to check whether it is a lifted work and how much such copied material is there in your work.
P.S.
I agree with most of the view points presented previously. Self-citation is an advertisement that has to be used moderately. Prof. Schleicher points out that the exceptional case is if an author is the only person interested in or/generating the research. This can occur if someone is a pioneer in the field. Its obviously important then to disseminate as much of the knowledge as possible so others can get up-to-speed in the area. Also, some IEEE journals prohibit self-citations.
Many universities do not consider self citations during evaluations these days as databases like Scopus and web of knowledge allows us to evaluate without self citations. But agreed, self citations cannot be avoided completely in my discipline as most of the work involves continuity or advancement on the know how to a large extent.
My personal opinion is that if the self citation of an author exceeds one third or 33% of the total citations received then some thing is got to be wrong with their approach unless no one else works on that area (which is very unlikely or rare these days)!
There is nothing like self plagiarism........you cannot steal from yourself !!
Self citation is a continuation of previous work; provided it does not dominate the new paper to the extent of rendering it short on new findings........
there is nothing like self citation. you are citing the article which related to your work and it doesn't matter whose article is that. citing is necessity as it support your views and prevent plagiarism.
Self-citations increases H-index because the software cannot exclude them. As an author I use self citations. If I use the same apparatus or the same method of calculation, reviewers usually do not like if I repeat detailed explanation, they require just citation. As a reviewer I check whether the citations are relevant, not only self-citations but all citations.
Scoppus database can exclude self-citations. It will also display the h-index without self citations.
Self-Citation is acceptable, provided you do not over do it, and your work is related and shows continuity in your research. however, it is recommended that you acknowledge other scientists working on the same research, although branding your name is also important
If your work is a continuation of your own previous work,you cannot avoid self citation, to avoid restatement of your earlier work in the present paper for better understanding,even if it be in brief.
P.S.
Self citation (like mentioned by others also) is only recommended when the relevance is there (between past articles and current one). If for example you have written articles on Image Processing and now you are working on Speech Recognition and still, you cite your previous articles (which has nothing to do with speech recognition) then it is definitely plagiarism and it is not ethical.
Sometimes the problem is not the self-citation but citing not relevant sources. I just read citation/refernccing policy in one of Elsevier journals has been changed. Citing in a list is not allowed; quoted "Each one of the cited sources must be discussed individually and explicitly to demonstrate their significance to your study". So agree with Zdenek Wagner, not ony checking self-citation but ALL CITATIONS.
Self citations can show continuity and evolution in your research/subject. On the other hand, it is good practice to limit self-citations, of course :-)
Self citation is only to make stronger (or to hi/hers expertise) his/her own claim on a particular area where he is working. every so often, It is good for the new comers but does not help much for others.
Self-citation is certainly better than having to repeat yourself. If you define something complicated in paper N, prove a theorem about it in paper N+1, and then use the theorem in paper N+2, it makes sense to self-cite instead of self-repeat. Of course there's a trade-off between avoiding repetition and having a self-contained paper.
It's of course an entirely different thing if you're (self-)citing work that is not relevant.
Self citation is desired when you continue similar kind of work and review literature on the same topic. However, if it is unnecessarily done then may limit the findings of your work.
Self-citation has been used for authors. It helps to give continuity to one's own work and it is very useful when writng short papers like 4-page articles and to avoid repetition.
I think self citation is useful to indicate the continuity of author's previous finding. In other way, it also the issue of plagiarism.
It depends on one's intentions and direction of thought. The self-citation relevance [something had to be cited (self-cited, in this case) because it was relevant at a particular point] is very subjective. The real question is whether one wanted to insert the particular self-citation(s) and then found a convenient place in the work (which is easy to find), or whether it was necessary because it happened in the process of writing that the self-citation was objectively needed (because it complements the work or makes it more understandable). In other words, it is a question of ego-centrism vs. self-awareness.
I think that even when we cite ourselves, we should strive not to automatically reproduce previous thoughts and writings (unless complicated technical issues are involved), but to further develop and clarify them, why not (partially or fully) disagree with them. Sometimes the latter may be regarded as an integral part of the general continuity.
The problem is simply solvable - in personal list of citation the self-citations should be passed over.
Самоцитирование- продвижение своих собственных идей, мыслей и тд которые по тем или иным причинам недоступны сообществу
I think that self citation is necessary when the present work is a continuation of a past work. It avoid you repetition.
Recently we experienced a peculiar situation wherein matching with our own original papers on the work was considered to be Plagiarism.Actually the Software gives only the matching,even with papers published after publication of our papers.Technically the Package is correct as it gives only the matcing contents and not exactly Plagiarism content..
This matching has to be interpreted properly by removing Such Matchings.Or else the Software Package has to be Redesigned in its algorithm to avoid such incidents so that it can be called a Proper Anti-Plagiarism Package in the True Sense.
P.S.
I personally believe that self citation is necessary when your research work is continuation of particular subject /field or research topic .It will indication of master/maturation of your research work in that particular field/subject/topic. However, it has some limitation. More people cited your work rather than self cited work.
The said problem happened in spite of mentioning in the CD as per the norms given,Our Own Papers on the work done by us in support of the Thesis.Of course,the mistake was rectified later ,after giving adequate proof.
Hence, what I wanted to say is that the Difference between Matching and Plagiarism has to be looked into.
P.S.
Self-citation can be accepted if the presented work is a continuation of the cited works and the reader could better understand the present work after reading the cited references. It is even recommended to avoid repeating the cited paragraphs, once the reader can find them in the cited references. This is not obvious with some national journals and conference proceedings. Here comes the issue of self-plagiarism: some authors believe they avoid plagiarism by citing their previous works, which however coincide with their citing publication to a great extent. This percentage of accepted copied material should be unanimously accepted. I heard about 75% accepted identical manuscripts!! I think this is beyond decency and reviewers should reject such papers without hesitation.
"avoid plagiarism by citing their previous works, which however coincide with their citing publication to a great extent. This percentage of accepted copied material should be unanimously accepted. I heard about 75% accepted identical manuscripts!! I I full agree with statement given by Mihi Predoi. However, I personally feel that the percentage should be 50% when you calculate IMPACT FACTOR of Publications.
I think self-citation can be accepted if the presented work is a continuation of the previous work. So that author do not have to explain the previous concepts in detail. The reader may refere the cited work. But it should not more than 30% of total cotations.
Some time it is good.............. But repetition of citation of your own papers is not so good............ It is according to me
I think most academics are going to agree with the principle that self-citation (as with any citation) is an important part of the provenance of research. That is; a reader should be able to clearly see (and then go and read for themselves) where ideas contained within an article's text were germinated. The 'grey' areas are in relation to how much, how often, and in what circumstance etc . . . and this includes the grey areas around the notion of the "journal-self-citation" (i.e., how often/much we cite the journal we're submitting an article to) and "research-group-self-citation" (i.e., how often/much we cite academic colleagues who are part of our [extended] research-group and/or how often they cite us).
Some practical guidelines have been offered in the previous 50 responses, so I won't go over old ground. Instead, I'd like to offer two food-for-thought statements:
(1) The "academic citation" as a concept, is in fact a human behaviour (rather than just a unit-of-measurement for analysing impact; or unit-of-pathway for analysing where an idea came from. As such, it is governed by the same social variables as most complex human behaviours that we try to conceptualise and understand... [and here I make a self-citation (irony not lost on me).... since I've written about this idea far more thoughtfully, and with research evidence, in a 2009 paper "Academic Citations: A Question of Ethics"... which is in my profile]
and...
(2) The "academic citation" as an object of analysis (to which we then attribute values related to 'research impact' or 'research quality' etc) has never been as transparent to the scientific community than it is today. That is; my citations (and my citation behaviour) and what they supposedly says about my research, is now completely transparent for myself and others to see.
For example. If I have a paper listed in GoogleScholar, I will know that once it becomes cited - by myself or others - a "cited by X" link will be added. The cited by link states firstly how many times my article has been cited by other scientific works in that index, and then secondly provides a hyperlink to a page that lists the works that cite mine. So I offer not a principle of how-many-time should I self-cite, but I simply suggest we let any approach be governed by the knowledge that should a reader click-through the "cited by 15" link underneath my articles to find that 7 of those 15 citations are self-citations, it paints a different picture for them about the research paper's story/impact than if they click-through and only 2 of the 15 citations are self-citations. Further, given that all our research is cite-able, and all citations are becoming transparent, any pattern of over-self-citation will become glaringly apparent.
My principle? I tell my students to just be honest.
~ If you need to cite something you've already published, then cite it.
~ If more than one of your previous works support your new stuff, cite the best one
~ Use citations to support your arguments, not show off your research
This honest (and ethical) approach may result - particularly initially - in 3 of the first 4 citations to a published work being self-citations, but since you will soon stop citing the work (because you will be citing your better work as your work evolves) the majority of any subsequent citations will come from other researchers. Now, of course, this leaves the variables associated with whether your work becomes "highly cited" or not up to other researchers and dare-I-say *circumstances sometimes outside of your control*... but at least your own citation behaviour won't distort any analysis of your work's impact, and if it is good research, and the cards fall your way, it will become cited. And if it doesn't, the next paper may.
(sorry so long... maybe I should have just cited the paper and said nothing more...)
Yes, keeping ethics of self-plagiarism in consideration, it is recommended to cite your previous work which is involved in your current research paper. It becomes easy for the viewers to understand your paper and also it is the obligation of the author as well.
But keep in mind that the self-plagiarism is allowed to a limited extent only and this extent depends on the necessity and significance of the inclusion of the previous work used for supporting the current paper.
Off course self-citation can help the reader track your previous work, but overdoing such a practice can lead to misconstrue the progress of your work. From my point of view, one or two self-citations would be fine.
For continuity of your work, yes self citation is a must otherwise it backfires.
Self-citation helps researchers to know your previous publications. If a researcher likes your paper, he also read previous work from you.
I won't say that self - citation is bad...if we are doing the continuation ot the work done previously, then it is good.
There are three reasons to self cite:
1. It is naturally occurring as any other reference material because it pertains to previous work on the subject- fine no problem..
2. It requires some materials in terms of figures, data, expressions etc. and it becomes useful to simply cite your own reference- no objection.
3. You have your internal desire to somehow bring in your work, knowing well that there are other important contributions more relevant. Your work is not relevant still you insert- not decent and objectionable. .
Finally who decides the category? Sometimes referees do but it is noticed the the readers and researchers in the field.
Dear Dr. M. M. Noor, In my opinion self citation is an essential process for showing the continuity of the work and it is good for the readers to get more information at one place. But this process should not be at the cost of avoidance of citing the work of others intentionally. This is an ethical academic meaness.
Continuity is one consideration, but not actually a very important one. Your work is already and automatically linked into a coherent body via the composite key of your name, your institution, and your research keywords in any good database, for example Thomson-Reuters "Web of Science". Where self-citation is usually seen (and justified) is in very fast moving fields like bio-medicine, where the author herself performed the prior work. It is less frequently seen (and less frequently justified) in slower moving fields, where seminal work was usually done longer ago and usually by someone other than the author. Does self-citation still occur for other reasons? Anyone active in science recognizes that it does...and usually it is for the purpose of improving one's citation statistics. However, modern bibliometrics, like the "h-index" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index), are very good at minimizing false-impact of self-citations in this context.
self citations are good in order to show continuity in research but in a certain limit. Let your peers cite your work instead, it is better.
Self citation is a good tool to keep continuity and link your related papers in well broader way, many a times referred citations are a good source for various authors as a source of good and potential related knowledge - I do find papers / pdfs from cross-references for good papers / reviews - these also act as a source of increasing your cited references too
Citations are important tool to judge one's research activity. it is good to cite one's previous works. Similarly self citation is also necessary to connect your research and for continuity.
For connecting the research and for the continuity self citation is essential.
1. Nothing is good or bad, thinking (of readers and judges) makes it so!
2. Nothing is good or bad, intention (of the author and co-authors) makes it so!
Dear Dr. M. M. Noor,
Genuine self citation is essential to let people know your work and can get benefit of it. Even critical suggestions as feedback of your cited work may help you. But honestly publish your cited work also, not the only the only self citation.
Lets imagine the following situation - Little Johnny is a post-doc or a Ph.D. student; Little Johnny's boss/supervisor is active, with many collaborations and, therefore, appears as a co-author in hundreds of publications. Little Johnny happens to publish an article. His boss is, of course, the last co-author. Mind you, in many cases the name of the boss is there only out of courtesy. Some years later Little Johnny checks the number of self-references to his article, and finds a huge number of them. Little Johnny says to himself "How come? I've referred to this article just once in my entire life." Well Johnny, your boss has many new students. They write articles and refer to your research, but your boss's name is again in the authors list. And this counts as a self-reference for you.
What do we do about that?
Self-citation is very useful, from my experience, when you want to reference either previous or related research you have done on the current topic. However, as has been pointed out, it is a "tool" which should be used sparingly.
Dear Dr. Genov,
I find your perspective of this issue quite illuminating and pragmatic. I generally think every researcher must try as much as possible to have an inbuilt self-citation meter. Afterall, there are limits to every good motives and such limits must be recognizable.
The views expressed here are correct. There should be a limit meter for every genuine work.
Self-citation is very useful , when you want to refer either previous or related research for showing in continuity on the current research topic/hypothesis.
Self citation must be done with honest intention at all times. This is very good for a serious and in-depth research
Dear Dr.M.M.Noor,
If the work is based on the previous work by the author, it is obviously necessary to cite the previous work.
From my experience, I would say that the work done by different author on the same problem may be give unclear picture and the reader may not be able to understand the concept.
But, self-citation by the author will give clear view of the problem and the recent developments in the same area. Therefore, I would say that the self-citation is most needed.
I agree with Prof,Kennady Chinedu Okafor, the citation should be done honestly.
Reusing without self citation is self plagiarism. Recycling of material does nothing to expand the body of knowledge.
Self citations itself indicates the author continuity as well as depth of knowledge in same line or subject
Self citation and self plagiarism are two different issues and using both interchangeably would be unfair. There is no harm in self-citing if the concept is an extension or related to some earlier work, but quoting and discrediting ones own work would definitely amount to self-plagiarism.
I understand the logic of the people fighting against "self-plagiarism". I also understand the logic of those arguing against "self-citation". But whom I don't understand are people fighting against self-plagiarism and self-citation both. Indeed, if I did my best explaining my new algorithm in paper A and then use it in paper B, I should either copy-paste parts of A into B, or reference B from A.
This is why I suspect that those who advocate the above point are not actively engaged in research.
I am not agree with Andrei P K. because Self citation and self plagiarism are two different issues and using both interchangeably would be unfair.
@Andrei P.K, I am afraid that you have not understood the concept of Self-plagiarism. Let me put it this way for you. If you explain your new algorithm in paper A and then use it in paper B, you would definitely either copy-paste parts of A into B with proper reference, it won't amount to plagiarism or self-plagiarism. However, if you explain your new algorithm in paper A and then replicate the same algorithm in paper B without citation, it will amount to self-plagiarism. Still more, there are people who do slight changes in their already published concept and reproduce the same in another journal, amounts to plagiarism.
A researcher cannot enjoy the liberty of reproducing his own concept without proper citation.
Every such self-citation is justified, which affects the outcome of authors successive or next work on the similar lines, but the moment self-citation is undertaken for metric purposes only, may be seen against the research ethics.
I fully agree with Ramesh Pandita 's statement however it's not a against the research ethics.
It is certain that the researcher will have a look at the research by conducting his experiment
In general, other-citation is always hard and is based of many complex conditions such as:
quality of journal as well as quality of published paper, publication advertisement, Publisher company, institution name and the geographic area.
In my opinion, self-citation is compulsory for any researcher.
It is acceptable if that is a vital part of the work and you are able to demonstrate how knowledge In the field is validated. Overdoing is not advised. People will check if the current study is replication of the previous ones, too.
I also agree with Dr. Noriko Cable's comments. Overdoing and replication of the study strictly prohibited.
I have no problem with self-citation, either to promote research done or to show a continuation on a research project, as it fulfills the purpose of making information available. Besides, depending on the research topic, one's own work might be the only one available to be cited. Now, self-plagiarism seems almost a conflict in terms. As long as the quantity of copied text remains within limits and is relevant, it shouldn't be a problem. However, and here I agree, overdoing, or replication of entire articles to be published again is most certainly unethical.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Artificial Intelligence