Does self-citation pay?

Abstract

Self-citations -those where authors cite their own works -account for a significant portion of all citations. These self-references may result from the cumulative nature of individual research, the need for personal gratification, or the value of self-citation as a rhetorical and tactical tool in the struggle for visibility and scientific authority. In this article we examine the incentives that underlie self-citation by studying how authors' references to their own works affect the citations they receive from others. We report the results of a macro study of more than half a million citations to articles by Norwegian scientists that appeared in the Science Citation Index. We show that the more one cites oneself the more one is cited by other scholars. Controlling for numerous sources of variation in cumulative citations from others, our models suggest that each additional self-citation increases the number of citations from others by about one after one year, and by about three after five years. Moreover, there is no significant penalty for the most frequent selfciters -the effect of self-citation remains positive even for very high rates of self-citation. These results carry important policy implications for the use of citations to evaluate performance and distribute resources in science and they represent new information on the role and impact of selfcitations in scientific communication.

The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in UK higher education institutions

“…And if those self-cites have passed peer review then they must have been seen to be appropriate. This is, we believe, why Fowler found a link between multiple self-citation and additional non-self cites 14 . These were high-profile, leading edge groups referring to their own work and being 'trailed' by many others.…”

“…A recent paper 13 has raised new arguments about the influence of self-citation: "the more one cites oneself the more one is cited by other scholars … our models suggest that each additional self-citation increases the number of citations from others by about one after one year, and by about three after five years … there is no significant penalty for the most frequent self-citers".…”

H-index in the Brazilian Academy of Sciences: comments and concerns

“…One problem is self-citation. Fowler and Aksnes (2007) have pointed out that more than 50% of the citation received by a researcher is linked directly or indirectly to self-citation. Regarding the hindex, authors can burst it up by selectively citing their own papers, giving preference to those that have not been cited very much.…”

“…A rather simplistic approach would be to eliminate self-citations from the indexes calculations (Schreiber 2007). Concerning this measure, it has been pointed out that the removal of self-citations does not affect the comparisons between scientists (Fowler and Aksnes 2007). On the other hand, should an author be penalized for using his own work…”

Should editors influence journal impact factors?

“…Authors working in prolific labs with many simultaneous, related projects receive a higher number of citations, as do authors who practise salami-slicing strategies, producing as many papers in as short a time possible from the same subject, leading to a high number of author self-citations. 24 Within the limited pool of journals considered by the Science Citation Index 1,35-37 impact factor, and citations counts in general, clearly show the attention that a particular journal or an individual author attracts, respectively, but they are weak indicators of scientific quality. Patterson and Harris 38 recently showed a low but statistically significant correlation between citations and quality score determined by independent experts.…”