Well, self-citation when properly used, can save an awful lot of work and repetition. Small section in today's article may have been more fully examined before, so cite the previous work rather than repeating it at length. You can minimise repetition of previous works by citing them in today's piece. So, self-citation has its place, and should be used when appropriate.

Christopher NOCK

Well, self-citation when properly used, can save an awful lot of work and repetition. Small section in today's article may have been more fully examined before, so cite the previous work rather than repeating it at length. You can minimise repetition of previous works by citing them in today's piece. So, self-citation has its place, and should be used when appropriate.

Christopher NOCK

Thanks for your insights on the subject Christopher Nock

Dear Dr Netto,

1) First, there is no crime if an author finds his previous work useful in a current one. As such, self-citation arises.

2) When an author cites his previous work (s) in a current work, it shows he is becoming prolific.

3) To the best of my knowledge, there is no rule that says NO to self-citation. Scholars and journals have only recommended limitations such as not more than 50% of your previous works be cited in the current one.

Adeleke IT

090540H

160119M

Where relevant there is no reason why you shouldn't refer to your own work. This is especially the case when citing your own original research results.

Adeleke Ibrahim Taiwo

Dear Dr. Taiwo. Thanks for your essential contributions to our discussion. I didn't mean to say that self-citation is not correct. The debate is how to find a balance between the adequate (our previous work results) and the excessive number of self-citations to improve our citations numbers in general.

Best regards

John Fleming

Dear Dr. Fleming. Thanks for your contribution. I think you found the right spot of the debate. If we use our previous results as a start point to our new research, the self-citations (related to this specific work) are entirely justifiable.

Best regards

I agree with Prof. @ Christopher Nock that one needs to "cite to avoid repetition". That should be the underlying principle of the process.

No need to cite all your papers irrelevant to the current work. That would be an abuse.

Dear Michael Issigonis

Thanks for your contribution! I completely agree. Most of the times the authors do not think that this abuse (as you said) will be detected. However, as a reviewer, we can even imply the author's identity when it happens (what is harmful to the blind review policy).

Best,

Yves

Please see this useful discussion!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Self_citation_is_it_ethical_or_necessary_sometimes

Dear Maham Muzamil

Thanks for show us the previous discussion.

Best regards

The topic sound interesting.

Fully we can not avoid self citation but it should be ,if it is really necessory .there should be limit, limit which should be globally accepted

For young scholars, it might be a good practice to promote your work through self-citation but caution should be taken to avoid irrelevant citation because of self promotion.

Good day Yves

My rule is

a) if you write in area of research that is mainstream; and there is a lot of work published, even about competing ideas, then you minimize selfcitation even to zero, and use existing work to cite, positively or negatively.

b) If you write in an area of research where there is not much published specially because the main stream missed a paradigm shift or flip, which requires somehow a new way of thinking or updated previous ideas, then you can use as much selfcitation as needed.

Reviewers who are up to date with what is out there, they may see too much self citation as not appropriate and request you add more references in case a), but in case b) they are fine as they themselves are inside the box the self citation is going over.

At least that is my current experience.

Wish a good day to everyone!

Lucio

I really agreed on this assertion.

Thanks.

Yves Costa Netto -

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.

Either you call it self-citation or self-promotion both are ethically right.

I have read papers published by top journals with the references containing 70% of the researchers' earlier works.

As we are all aware, rules or you call it laws are for the less privileged in any society.

I have seen less quality papers published in top notch journals, while quality papers are desk rejected due to the geographical location or Universities of the Author(s).