Self‐citations in the Library and Information Science Literature

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of self‐citation in the library and information science literature. A sample of 1,058 articles was examined. 50% of the articles examined contained at least one self‐citation. Articles that were reports of research, that were written by a faculty member, that addressed a theoretical topic, or that had multiple authors were all more likely to have to higher self‐citation rates. The self‐citation rate of 50% was higher than that reported in studies of self‐citation rates in the sciences and social sciences. However, the percentage of self‐citations as related to total citations of 6.6% falls between the percentage reported in the sciences and that reported in other social sciences.

Authors as citers over time

“…The base of the percentages is each author's total number of outgoing citations, shown also, as found in their works covered by ISI. Overall, the percentages of self-citations are similar, ranging from 3 to 8%, which agrees well with the 6.6% average self-citation rate for library and information science authors reported by Dimitroff and Arlitsch (1995). (This is Lawani's synchronous self-citation rate, Dialog style.)…”

“…In any case, if egotism is defined as excessive self-citation, the burden of proving excess is on the definer. With Dimitroff and Arlitsch's (1995) baseline data available for comparison, I do not see it in the identities of the authors presented below. Baseline data are lacking for their Dialog-style rates of diachronic self-citation, but these, too, though not presented here, seem very modest.…”

The prevalence of synchronous self-citation practices at the institutional level

“…It may be noted that where excessive self-citations are regarded as an abuse (Lawani 1982;Martyn 1975), their prevalence in fair number is perceived as normal (Aksnes 2003) and even commendable, if only to avoid the repetition of already published information (Macdonald and Kam 2011). Authors have mostly studied self-citations in specific subject fields, such as Plant Physiology and Neurobiology (Tagliacozzo 1977); Library and Information Science (Dimitroff and Arlitsch 1995;Shah, Gul and Gaur 2015); Ecology (Pichappan and Sarasvady 2002); Diabetes Mellitus (Gami et al 2004); General Medicine (Kulkarni et al 2011); Otolaryngology (Tolisano, Song and Cable 2015), and have mostly examined self-citations with regard to their frequency in an article (the number of times they occur in an article).…”

“…Tagliacozzo (1977) observed 17.5 percent share of self-citations in the field of Plant Physiology and Neurobiology when book and monograph references are excluded from the total reference count. Dimitroff and Arlitsch (1995) found even distribution of articles with and without self-citations in the field of Library and Information Science. Synder and Bonzi (1998) found an average self-citation rate of 9.0 percent, varying from 16.0 percent in the Physical Sciences (Chemistry & Geology); 6.0 percent in the Social Sciences (Economics & Sociology) to 3.0 percent in the Humanities (Asian Studies & Art History).…”

Assessment of Researchers Through Bibliometric Indicators: The Area of Information and Library Science in Spain as a Case Study (2001–2015)

“…In Library and Information Science, several papers offer evidence that about half the papers published in specialized journals contain at least one instance of self-citation (Dimitroff and Arlitsch, 1995;Davarpanah and Aslekia, 2008). Although modest levels of self-citation may simply be a reflection of researchers building on previous findings, in excess, self-citation may reflect preconceived citations that entail less plurality in research perspectives on a topic or an intent to manipulate impact-based indicators for one's own benefit in individual research evaluation processes.…”