Self-citation and its impact on scientific workflow assessment: The review of publications. Part I
https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2022-2-49-70
Abstract
The author reviews publications on the problem of self-citation and resulting mispresentations at the stage bibliometric analysis. He introduces the definition of self-citation and its special cases, i. e. author’s, institutional, publisher’s and disciplinary. The formulas for general self-citation metrics, i. e. self-citation and self-citedness coefficients, are provided. The global publications on author’s, institutional, national and journal self-citation are reviewed thoroughly. The current concepts of the role and impact of self-citation on scientific activity assessment are generalized. On the basis of his analytical review, the author argues that the researchers obtain consensus on several aspects, e. g.: а) excessive and absent self-citation are both seen as pathologies; в) self-citation has insignificant impact on large research entities though this influence can be critical when analyzing contributions by individual authors; с) self-citation impact is well-expressed for scientific entities with weak bibliometric indicators, while the top scientists, organizations, journals, etc., get most of external links. The author examines the response of bibliometric indicators and databases to self-citation manipulations to adjust the indicators.
Part I of the review is intended to define the basic concepts and terms and to examine the most popular author’s self-citation.
Supporting agencies: The article is prepared through the financial support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research within the Project No. 20-111-50209.
About the Author
V. V. Pislyakov
Higher School of Economics National Research University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir V. Pislyakov – Cand. Sc. (Physics & Mathematics), Deputy Director, Library, Higher School of Economics National Research University; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Informetrics
Moscow
References
1. May K. O. Abuses of Citation Indexing // Science. 1967. Vol. 156 (3777). P. 890–892. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.156.3777.890-a.
2. Cawkell A. E. Science Citation Index // Nature. 1970. Vol. 228 (5273). P. 789–790. URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/228789b0
3. Martino J. P. Citation indexing for research and development management // IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. – 1971. – Vol. EM-18 (4). P. 146–151. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1971.6448353.
4. Myers C. R. Journal citations and scientific eminence in contemporary psychology // American Psychologist. 1970. Vol. 25 (11). P. 1041–1048. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030149.
5. Bar-Ilan J. Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century – A review // Journal of Informetrics. 2008. Vol. 2 (1). P. 1–52. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.11.001.
6. Waltman L. A review of the literature on citation impact indicators // Journal of Informetrics. 2016. Vol. 10 (2). P. 365–391. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007.
7. Egghe L., Rousseau R. Introduction to Informetrics: Quantitative Methods in Library, Documentation and Information Science. Amsterdam e. a.: Elsevier Science Publishers, 1990. URL: http://eprints.rclis.org/6011/ (data obrashcheniya: 27.06.2021).
8. Glänzel W., Debackere K., Thijs B., Schubert A. A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 67 (2). P. 263–277. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0098-9.
9. Szomszor M., Pendlebury D. A., Adams J. How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess // Scientometrics. 2020. Vol. 123 (2). P. 1119–1147. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5.
10. Westbrook J. H. Identifying Significant Research // Science. 1960. Vol. 132 (3435). P. 1229–1234. URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.132.3435.1229.
11. Tagliacozzo R. Self-citations in Scientific Literature // Journal of Documentation. 1977. Vol. 33 (4). P. 251–265. URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026644
12. Wallmark J. T., Eckerstein S., Langered B., Holmqvist H. E. S. Increase in Efficiency with Size of Research Teams // IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 1973. Vol. EM-20 (3). P. 80–86. URL: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.1973.6448434.
13. Moed H. F., Burger W. J. M., Frankfort J. G., van Raan A. F. J. A comparative study of bibliometric past performance analysis and peer judgement // Scientometrics. 1985. Vol. 8 (3–4). P. 149–159. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02016933.
14. Moed H. F., Burger W. J. M., Frankfort J. G., Van Raan A. F. J. The use of bibliometric data for the measurement of university research performance // Research Policy. 1985. Vol. 14 (3). P. 131–149. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(85)90012-5.
15. Minasny B., Hartemink A. E., McBratney A. Individual, country, and journal self-citation in soil science // Geoderma. 2010. Vol. 155 (3–4). P. 434–438. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2009.12.003
16. Shehatta I., Al-Rubaish A. M. Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries // Scientometrics. 2019. Vol. 120 (2). P. 775–791. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03139-3.
17. Raisig L. M. World Biomedical Journals, 1951–60: A Study of the Relative Significance of 1,388 Titles Indexed in Current List of Medical Literature // Bulletin of the Medical Library Association. 1966. Vol. 54 (2). P. 108–125.
18. Earle P., Vickery B. Social science literature use in the UK as indicated by citations // Journal of Documentation. 1969. Vol. 25 (2). P. 123–141. URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/eb026468.
19. Narin F., Pinski G., Gee H. H. Structure of the Biomedical Literature // Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 1976. Vol. 27 (1). P. 25–45. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270104
20. Zhou Y. Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context // Scientometrics. 2021. Vol. 126 (7). P. 6013–6040. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03995-y
21. Yitzhaki M. The “language preference” in sociology: Measures of “language self-citation”, “relative own-language preference indicator”, and “mutual use of languages” // Scientometrics. 1998. Vol. 41 (1–2). P. 243–254. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457981.
22. Egghe L., Rousseau R., Yitzhaki M. The “own-language preference”: Measures of relative language self-citation // Scientometrics. 1999. Vol. 45 (2). P. 217–232. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458434.
23. Pislyakov V. V. Metody otsenki nauchnogo znaniya po pokazatelyam tsitirovaniya // Sotsiologich. zhurn. 2007. № 1. S. 128–140. URL: https://www.jour.fnisc.ru/index.php/socjour/article/view/934/888 (data obrashcheniya: 27.06.2021).
24. Pislyakov V. V. Bibliometricheskie indikatory v resursah kompanii Clarivate // Rukovodstvo po naukometrii: indikatory razvitiya nauki i tehnologii, 2-e izd. / M. A. Akoev, V. A. Marcusova, O. V. Moskaleva, V. V. Pislyakov [pod red. M. A. Akoeva]. Ekaterinburg : izdvo Ural. un-ta, 2021. S. 177–220. URL: https://doi.org/10.15826/B978-5-7996-3154-3.
25. Glänzel W., Thijs B., Schlemmer B. A bibliometric approach to the role of author self-citations in scientific communication // Scientometrics. 2004. Vol. 59 (1). P. 63–77. URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000013299.38210.74.
26. Schubert A., Glänzel W., Thijs B. The weight of author self-citations. A fractional approach to self-citation counting // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 67 (3). P. 503–514. URL: https://doi.org/10.1556/Scient.67.2006.3.11.
27. Rousseau R. Temporal differences in self-citation rates of scientific journals // Scientometrics. 1999. Vol. 44 (3). P. 521–531. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458493.
28. Rousseau R. Journal evaluation: Technical and practical issues // Library Trends. 2002. Vol. 50 (3). P. 418–439. URL: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8418/librarytrendsv50i3i_opt.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 27.06.2021).
29. Porter A. L. Citation analysis: Queries and caveats // Social Studies of Science. 1977. Vol. 7 (2). P. 257–267. URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631277700700207.
30. Porter A. L., Wolfle D. Utility of the Doctoral Dissertation // American Psychologist. 1975. Vol. 30 (11). P. 1054–1061. URL: https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.30.11.1054.
31. Meadows A. J. Communication in Science. London : Butterworths, 1974.
32. van Raan A. F. J. The influence of international collaboration on the impact of research results: Some simple mathematical considerations concerning the role of self-citations // Scientometrics. 1998. Vol. 42 (3). P. 423–428. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02458380.
33. van Raan A F. J., van Leeuwen T. N. A Decade of Astronomy Research in the Netherlands. Research Report to the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (Astronomy Division, NWO/ASTRON). Leiden : Centre for Science and Technology Studies, 1995.
34. Herbertz H. Does it pay to cooperate? A bibliometric case study in molecular biology // Scientometrics. 1995. Vol. 33 (1). P. 117–122. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02020777.
35. Aksnes D. W. A macro study of self-citation // Scientometrics. 2003. Vol. 56 (2). P. 235–246. URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021919228368.
36. Glänzel W., Thijs B. The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators // Scientometrics. 2004. Vol. 59 (3). P. 281–310. URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000018535.99885.e9.
37. Thijs B., Glänzel W. The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric mesoindicators. The case of European universities // Scientometrics. 2006. Vol. 66 (1). P. 71–80. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0006-3
38. Glänzel W., Thijs B. Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? // Scientometrics. 2004. Vol. 61 (3). P. 395–404. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045117.13348.b1.
39. Scarpa F., Bianco V., Tagliafico L. A. The impact of the national assessment exercises on self-citation rate and publication venue: An empirical investigation on the engineering academic sector in Italy // Scientometrics. 2018. Vol. 117 (2). P. 997–1022. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2913-5
40. Seeber M., Cattaneo M., Meoli M., Malighetti, P. Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions // Research Policy. 2019. Vol. 48 (2). P. 478–491. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004.
41. Peroni S., Ciancarini P., Gangemi A., Nuzzolese A. G., Poggi F., Presutti V. The practice of self-citations: A longitudinal study // Scientometrics. 2020. Vol. 123 (1). P. 253–282. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03397-6
42. Abramo G., D’Angelo C. A., Grilli L. The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior. URL: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2102/2102.05358.pdf (data obrashcheniya: 27.06.2021).
43. Hirsch J. E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2005. Vol. 102 (46). P. 16569–16572. URL: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102.
44. Flatt J. W., Blasimme A., Vayena E. Improving the measurement of scientific success by reporting a self-citation index // Publications. 2017. Vol. 5 (3). Art. no. 20. URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/publications5030020
Review
For citations:
Pislyakov V.V. Self-citation and its impact on scientific workflow assessment: The review of publications. Part I. Scientific and Technical Libraries. 2022;(2):49-70. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2022-2-49-70
Views:
1313
Email this article 