If "acknowledge him self" means to refer to one own's previous work -- there is nothing wrong or unacceptable in doing this, especially if you have contributed a lot to the development of this particular area of research or this particular topic. Or, if studies beside your own work are scarce. However, excessive citation of own work for the sake of increasing the h-index is not fine. Also, many journals require that when submitting their papers the authors should not reveal his -- or her -- identity to allow for the double-blind review. You still can cite your work, just avoid clearly signalling (e.g., "in my previous study") that the paper is yours, unless the editors and reviewers ask you to add such an explanation.

If "acknowledge him self" means to refer to one own's previous work -- there is nothing wrong or unacceptable in doing this, especially if you have contributed a lot to the development of this particular area of research or this particular topic. Or, if studies beside your own work are scarce. However, excessive citation of own work for the sake of increasing the h-index is not fine. Also, many journals require that when submitting their papers the authors should not reveal his -- or her -- identity to allow for the double-blind review. You still can cite your work, just avoid clearly signalling (e.g., "in my previous study") that the paper is yours, unless the editors and reviewers ask you to add such an explanation.

A good response from Larisa.

Phillippe - it depends on context. I regularly cite my own work but I do so against the fact that I have a long-established publication record in my main discipline area and have published quite extensively. If I look related work in the area, by other authors, they regularly cite my work as well - so why would I not do the same? It also depends on the nature of the article. For instance, if it is conceptual, model-development etc - then the editor/reader has to be convinced that the author is coming from an area of personal expertise based on their own work.

On the other hand, if I only cited my work to the detriment of all the other work available, then I believe that is where the practice is questionable. I agree with Larisa that, if the intent is purely to increase personal citation, then this is unethical. My discipline is reasonably broad so I can draw on a multitude of other works. Some colleagues I know work in highly specialised 'niche' disciplines whereby only a very small pool of researchers work. They have limited specialist journals that they can publish in and, often, they are the main source of available publications - so they have to self-cite.

I review for around 40 international journals. Larisa mentions about blind review - but it is usually easy to spot self-citation i.e. 'in-press' articles are usually the authors own and any multiple listing of the same author is more likely to be self-citation.

Yea, Larisa has that correct. You can reference yourself--actually your work, as long as you avoid self-plaigiaism.

I have no idea what it might mean to "self-knowledge". You acknowledge the help of others, or funding bodies, or spouses, or children, or the Pope, but not yourself.....

Christopher NOCK

It is good to read that Larisa, Dean and Christopher are on the same line: if the intention is purely to increase personal quotation, this would be unethical. I would like to add some considerations to the interesting motives. With older publications it was less important how often you were quoted. Sales of books, translations, print runs of magazines and invitations to keynotes were strong indicators. Now, indices and scores for scientific activities via the web are becoming increasingly important and the number of scientists who act internationally and get recognition is increasing. The tendency to mention one's own publications in more detail also had to do with the feeling of wanting to be complete. After all, how should others become aware of the existence of your relevant publications in your field of research? In my case it often concerns publications about the (small) Caribbean region or the ABC islands where only Papiamentu is spoken on three islands. Studies are also increasingly being conducted in groups. Then the feeling is less strongly present that you are glorifying yourself. You will also find it worthwhile to give your co-authors recognition at various locations in the world. Seen in this light, there may be more considerations for not easily condemning self-citations.

Thank you all for your respective contributions.

The following link leads to an article were the first author being the CEO of the company wich financially support the research found to be acknowledge.

Article Étude de la toxicité aigüe et subaigüe de l’extrait au vin d...

please tell me about your impressions!

Philippe Belle Ebanda Kedi

Generally, to assure an accurate practice, self-citations should be used to support the arguments, not to demonstrate your research. Moreover, self-cites may used to compare recent findings of the research with previous results when studying the same theme. The important point here is to avoid turning self-citations into self-promotion.