Some peer reviews evidently are tempted to ask authors to cite their work, perhaps as a way to boost their own influence. Sometimes the editors ask authors to cite papers published in the same journal to boost its impact factor.
Do you think this is ethical ? or journals should do better to stop such behaviors?
No it is not ethical ! . Also surprised about the quality of editorial board of that particular J.
Citations of one's academic knowledge contributions could be considered a form of cultural and social capital. Is forcing citations perhaps a bit like leasing a flashy car rather than buying it, in order to to fake having economic capital? You can fool some of the people some of the time...
Prof. Hamad Ali: I have been never exposed to the first case. This is because I didn't know who are the reviewers. But, I have just been exposed to the second case; the journal which is ISI indexed asked us to increase the references by using papers published in the same journal.
In my opinion, the first case is a type of real plagiarism issue.
If the work addresses the problem that the authors happen to have in the submission under consideration and the editors feel comfortable with it, why not? How will the authors even know the reviewers in a double blind review. As a matter of policy, I do not review single blind. I don't just touch it, for this reason.
Dear Hamad Ali,
This is a very interesting and important question. I have encountered this several times as both an author and a reviewer. In my opinion, this action is inappropriate. On the one hand, there can be a situation that the one of reviewer’s paper is necessary for the literature of the reviewed paper for some reason. For example, the subject of the reviewed work is an extension of the reviewer's work or a presentation of a different approach to a given problem. On the other hand, if the reviewer recommends citing a few or a dozen of his works that are not closely related to the subject of the paper, it is simply unethical and should be eliminated. By acting this way, the reviewer reveals his identity and it is not in line with the basic rules of the blind review. I think that the editor of a journal should react in such situations before sending a review to the Authors. Moreover, in extreme situations editor should eliminate such reviewers from the review process in the future.
Best Regards,
Krzysztof Skarżyński
Dear Hamad Ali thank you for your interesting technical question. This problem is certainly of broad general interest to many RG members. Even though most answers agree in that this is unethical or unacceptable, the answer to your question is not as clear and easy as it seems. I had several occasions where a reviewer asked to add a few more citations, but these references were not just from one research group. In virtually all cases it made sense to add these references, so why not? Occasionally I also wrote in my review of a research manuscript that the authors should cite one or two of our earlier papers. This happened in cases where the authors cited a recent review article but not our pioneering original research articles. It had nothing to do with "boosting my own influence".
After all, asking for additional references is not always a bad habit, but every case should be judged individually. Please think about that.
Please note that closely related question have been asked earlier on RG. Please have a look at the following very similar threads:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-is-your-prospective-about-the-reviewers-that-suggest-authors-to-cite-reviewers-own-work-during-the-revision-process
(109 answers)
and
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Have-you-received-suggestions-for-citations-from-reviewers-of-your-articles
(25 answers)
Sometimes we add and sometimes we ignore. It's part of the review process we can not avoid it.
"Sometimes the editors ask authors to cite papers published in the same journal to boost its impact factor." - A journal justifies such a request by the claim that the journal publishes papers which are in the sphere of interest of its readers. Hence, a paper should be "connected" to some papers from that journal to be published by that journal. This may not be quite fair, but it sounds almost as a valid argument.
This is clearly unethical. But I think in this competitive world of publication, if you think it is fine, you could consider, because basically such promoted citations will not take anyone very far.
I have just been asked by an editor to cite his papers and I have politely mentioned that both of the papers he mentioned are totally irrelevant and non-coherent with the subject in the review. So i am going to go ahead with this and hope is does not get offended.
I think there is no definite answer... If the suggested papers are relevant this is correct. One should bear in mind that the referees are chosen (or at least should be) because they are competent in the field which means that they probably have written some important papers in the field. The same is true for the journal: one submits the paper to a journal because he/she thinks it is the one which is more specialised in the field and would give more visibility to his/her paper...
Peer reviewers or editors of journals who expect to be cited without having a definitive and well founded reason are more interested in seeing their name in the journal than to be interested in science. This behaviour of course is NOT scientific and ethical, and surely should be stopped!
This kind of practice is totally unethical. The Scientific community should not promote it and especially the editors of all journals should look into the matter before it has become a common practice.
It depends on the purpose for which the reviewer asks to put his research in the bibliography. If he is an expert in the field, as he should be since it is reviewing the paper, he may have produced some research which is strictly related to the content of the manuscript. In this case it might be appropriate to suggest his papers to be cited, because it could complement the manuscript and improve its scientific relevance. Otherwise it is not ethical: the author of the manuscript should refuse to include the referee's papers in the citations and might inform the editor of his behavior.
Of Course it’s unethical. I faced this suggestions from reviewers with unrelated research.
One of the (dark) side effects of the rush for citations. 'publish (and get cited) or perish'.
If it is well justified then it should be ok. If you are the most relevant person on the topic and there is obviously a lack of information because the authors did not mention aspects of the problem revealed by your articles, then what to do? I am always skeptic doing that and if I feel I should do it I always ask the the editorial team for their opinion.
Unfortunately, this happens. But it is also part of the game. As Dimitri Batani noticed, it is the same when choosing the journal you want to be published in. And again when slicing the paper such you can make two to three papers when one would have been enough. The dark side of publication/citation.
It depends. If the request is solely intended to boost citation (impact factor), it is certainly unethical. But I doubt you will ever receive a reviewer's comment with that explanation. Usually, the reviewer will indicate a paper for citation, and people may think they are trying to get more citations. However, a reviewer is usually someone that works in the field and has experience and knowledge (sometimes decades of expertise) and will guide you to a better material. These people will likely not benefit from your extra citation - neither will the journal. It is just one out of hundreds. You need to keep in mind that is also inappropriate to make unsupported claims or ignore the work of others. You are supposed to evaluate the state-of-art of your research and clearly indicate novelty. If you ever get a paper to review that is in the same field as yours and the person did not cite you but should have, you will do the same. Proper citations are never too much. Nonetheless, if the reviewer indicated a paper that you don't see fit for citation, or you rather go to with a different citation, it is perfectly fine to state that in the response document. No editor in the right mind would deny you publication based on that. Publishing is not easy, and even the most experienced professors go over the manuscript several times before submitting it. Also never take the reviewer's comment personally, it is strictly business.
If some referee asks to add his publications in the reference and if it is relevant to the subject matter then nothing is wrong. if it is only for shake of increasing his citation then it is not ethical and should be avoided.
The editor and editorial colleague of any magazine must be impartial! And not in any way put pressure on the authors to whom to refer to (especially in your journal!)
I guess it is a good idea if the reviewer finds a comprehensive connection between his/her work and the peer-reviewed work.
I am okay with this idea as long as it will help the work and add value to it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Journal Impact Factor