writing process ended by submission in the magazine. they must update the citation to the most recent one. submission will be in another magazine with a new point of view.

I do not think that recommending your own article is unethical if your article represents the most up to date research in the area. Two things: do not indicate that you are the author of the article as you need to remain anonymous. Also, you could also recommend some current research by other authors so that you are not just advocating your own work. Your work is published, current and relevant so why not recommend it? Ultimately it is up to the author as to whether they use your work.

I have this issue all the time when I do reviews. IMO, there is nothing unethical in this practice as long as it is done during (not after) the review process. The issue, however, is that it will reveal your identity. Some tricks I use is that I suggest several other works and put mine in the middle. If the review is negative, I simply write a note to the editor and ask him/her to suggest reading my previous works. In this case, the authors do not know that the recommended paper came from me.

When faced with an ethical issue, we would normally first check for legal restrictions, codes of ethics and SOPs. I'm not so sure if any of these apply in this case unless the journal has ethical guidelines or practices covering this (but then you wouldn't be asking the question).

Next, we would try and find out if the action is customary in the industry (insofar as peer reviewing is an industry) and discuss with superiors and colleagues (as you're doing now through ResearchGate). Is there a consensus among professional peers?

If none of these provide much guidance (but see the answers which have already been given), then it comes down to one's own beliefs, values and moral principles (see below), with the disclosure test as the last tick box ("How would you feel if your decision was made public?").

I don't think that mentioning your own research constitutes a conflict of interest if your own work is really state-of-the-art "must read" and relevant to the paper under review.

It could be argued that you're advancing your own interests. However, even if one or more of your own publications get cited in a revised version of the paper, the overall impact on your academic value (citations) is likely to be small. In other words, the moral intensity would be low. Recommending your own work has no harmful consequences (non-maleficence principle); it's not at the expense of other studies that you know to be more recent, more relevant or offer stronger arguments, evidence, conclusions or more interesting and innovative insights (honesty principle).

Actually, the benefits of mentioning your own work outweigh the potential drawbacks as you are helping the anonymous author(s) to improve their manuscript (beneficence principle); in a way, you can be seen to be safeguarding the professional quality of the work done in your field (the greater good).

Even so, I have encountered cases where it's not so clear-cut, with one paper of mine being criticised for failing to cite what turned out to be the reviewer's own body of work. The issue is then one of what constitutes relevance to a particular research question or topic. In some disciplines and for some research areas, surely alternatives co-exist. If subsequent acceptance of a manuscript depends on reworking the study to accommodate a different interpretation of what is relevant, then it may be a conflict of interest after all.

Two more points. In professional ethics, we'd like to avoid the appearance of wrong-doing and not just wrong-doing as such. Since the peer review process is double-blind, this will take the form of the anonymous author's perception (suspicion) of such an appearance of wrong-doing by the anonymous reviewer. Not sure if anyone has tried to examine this systematically.

Secondly, you mention "relatively old citations". Wouldn't that undermine the quality of the study regardless of whether your own work was cited or not? Adding a recent reference may not suffice to rescue a study that's somehow oblivious of the most recent developments and findings in a particular area.

I do not think it is unethicl. But it should be done with the best of intentions and not wih the purpose of increasing your citations.

You should recommend it with care!

The reviewer should. remain anonymous and cite other references to the authors.

I dont think it is unethical because it helps the authors increase there literature bank, thereby making them to arguably state in clear times their contributions to knowledge, which is why the WHY of research

The journal editor decided that you are suitable to review the manuscript, you certainly were not a random choice on the subject. You published your original contribution and other researchers should include it in their considerations in order to improve the subject of your (and all scientific community) mutual interest. It is of interest of science and more generally, of the humanity to improve the knowledge (and not to go in reverse!). You know that you would not suggest your work out of vanity. Can you imagine this: If you were some other researcher on the subject, would he (you) recommend that (your) work?

Such a suggestion is unethical because the reviewer automatically becomes an interested party in the work. Also, it amounts to academic fraud because the reviewer is taken undue advantage of his or her position to score citation point.

@. Brian Leo

Yes... It is unethical...

Because it is within the reviewer's duties to suggest things to be done by the author to enhance the publishability of the manuscript, they may recommend any existing work including their own work, provided it is critically relevant. The reviewer may suggest 2 or 3 other relevant papers without giving any indication which of the suggested articles was written by them.

It is unethical if done only to increase your citations. It happened to me recently that a reviewer asked me to cite 5 papers with absolutely no link to my research, that is, on a completely different field. Of course, the references had one co-author in common which was clearly the reviewer. It was not easy, but I managed integrating two of them and the paper got accepted. This is not a correct way to ask for citations.

Dear Prof. Is not a bad idea. Please if need be, kindly recommend yours with other authors recent work to the authors of the manuscript. It will help the authors to get fundamental knowledge for even future works.

I think it is not a bad idea as long as the suggested papers are relevant to the one under review.

I think it is not a bad idea as long as the suggested papers are relevant to the one under review.

I think it is unethical

I think as a reviewer, you should only just suggest that authors cite more recent references rather than pointing to your own work for citing. Peradventure, they could stumble on your work. Some authors tend to feel coerced when you recommend a particular article to them for citation: they would want to cite it by all means, lest you reject their manuscript.

Reviewers do this often time to increase citations for their paper.

Reviewer often do this