Author self-citation in orthodontics is associated with author origin and gender

Abstract

Background The aims of this bibliometric study were to determine author self-citation trends in high-impact orthodontic literature and to investigate possible association between self-citation and publication characteristics. Methods Six orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor as ranked by 2017 Journal Citation Reports were screened for a full publication year (2018) for original research articles, reviews, and case reports. Eligible articles were scrutinized for article and author characteristics and citation metrics. Univariable and multivariable negative binomial regression was used to examine associations between self-citation incidence and publication characteristics. Results Medians for author self-citation rate of the most self-citing authors and self-citations were 3.03% (range 0–50) and 1 (range 0–19), respectively. In the univariable analysis, there was no association between self-citation counts and study type (P = 0.41), article topic (P = 0.61), number of authors (P = 0.62), and rank of authors (P = 0.56). Author origin (P = 0.001), gender (P = 0.001) and journal (P = 0.05) were associated with self-citation counts and in the multivariable analysis only origin and gender remained strong self-citation predictors. Asian authors and females self-cited significantly less often than all other regions and male authors. Conclusions Authors in orthodontics do not self-cite at a frequency that suggests potential citation manipulation. Author origin and gender were the only variables associated with citations counts. More bibliometric research is necessary to draw solid conclusions about author self-citation trends in orthodontic literature.

Research trends in ulcerative colitis: A bibliometric and visualized study from 2011 to 2021

“…It is not uncommon for researchers who focus on a specific field to self-cite at all levels of publication, particularly if they have been productive in their field for a while ( Livas et al, 2021 ). Excessive and superfluous self-citations are inappropriate since they artificially inflate citation-based metrics and self-promotion.…”

“…In the early years from 2011 to 2013, UC research began to focus on (Actis et al, 2019) cystic fibrosis, asthma, breast cancer, and osteoporosis (Kaplan, 2015); primary sclerosing cholangitis, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and ankylosing spondylitis (Wilks, 1859); celiac disease, pouchitis, and familial adenomatous polyposis (Viola et al, 2021); abnormal motility, colonic permeability, and enteric nervous system (Nguyen et al, 2018); adipose tissue (Lucaciu et al, 2021); epidemiology, gene polymorphism, susceptibility loci, drug delivery, and activity index (Connelly et al, 2016); dextran sulfate sodium (DSS) and acetic acid (Schöffel et al, 2021); guinea pig (Schöffel et al, 2016); N-acetylcysteine, fish oil, and vitamin D (Chen, 2006); 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA), sulfasalazine, olsalazine, and chitosan (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010); cyclosporin, 6-mercaptopurine, methotrexate, and azathioprine (Aksnes, 2003); certolizumab pegol, infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, and tacrolimus (Bardeesi et al, 2021); Adacolumn, leukocytapheresis, and apheresis (Freeman, 1977); probiotics, antibiotic therapy, curcumin, traditional Chinese medicine, and electroacupuncture (Cobo et al, 2011); colectomy, ileostomy, and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis; (Kessler, 1963); liver transplantation (Marshakova, 1973); confocal laser endomicroscopy and PillCam colon capsule endoscopy (Small, 1973); C-reactive protein, lactoferrin, and fecal calprotectin (Sandborn et al, 2012a); E-cadherin (Sandborn et al, 2017); Epstein-Barr virus and cytomegalovirus infection (Feagan et al, 2013); Helicobacter pylori, gut microbiota, Escherichia coli, and Clostridium difficile infection (Kleinberg, 2003); short-chain fatty acids, butyrate, and bile acid (Cohen et al, 2010); innate immunity (Ng et al, 2017); regulatory T (T reg ) cell, T helper 17 (Th17) cell, natural killer T cell, and mast cell (Burisch et al, 2020); enterochromaffin cell (Livas et al, 2021); antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody and anti-Saccharomyces cerevisiae antibody (Glänzel and Thijs, 2004); angiogenesis...…”

Author Self-Citation in the Turkish Otorhinolaryngology Literature

“…The studies investigating the association between author self-citations and the type and topic of the studies revealed conflicting results in the literature. Livas et al ( 7 ) screened six orthodontic journals with the highest impact factor and found that there was no association between self-citation counts and the type and topic of the studies. However, Tolisano et al ( 17 ) reported that original articles had a significantly higher author self-citation rate, whereas no difference was found among the otolaryngological study topics.…”

“…It comprises multiple subtypes that are ascribed for authors, journals, institutions, countries, and languages ( 6 ). Self-citations are likely to be an inevitable entity for productive researchers especially focus on a specific field since they have a higher probability to cite their own papers ( 7 ). Also, self-citations have multiple benefits since they enable authors to expand earlier hypotheses, refer to the established methodology and utilize them for further investigations ( 8 ).…”

“…Author self-citation is simply defined as any instance where a given author cites their own articles in subsequent scholarly works ( 11 ). The role of author self-citation in different medical specialties including otorhinolaryngology (ORL) has been investigated in the literature ( 6 , 7 , 8 , 15 , 16 , 17 ). However, the prevalence and other characteristics of author self-citation in Turkish ORL literature are unidentified to date.…”