The impact of self-citation

Novel approach for quantitative and qualitative authors research profiling using feature fusion and tree-based learning approach

Article citation creates a link between the cited and citing articles and is used as a basis for several parameters like author and journal impact factor, H-index, i10 index, etc., for scientific achievements. Citations also include self-citation which refers to article citation by the author himself. Self-citation is important to evaluate an author's research profile and has gained popularity recently. Although different criteria are found in the literature regarding appropriate self-citation, self-citation does have a huge impact on a researcher's scientific profile. This study carries out two cases in this regard. In case 1, the qualitative aspect of the author's profile is analyzed using hand-crafted feature engineering techniques. The sentiments conveyed through citations are integral in assessing research quality, as they can signify appreciation, critique, or serve as a foundation for further research. Analyzing sentiments within in-text citations remains a formidable challenge, even with the utilization of automated sentiment annotations. For this purpose, this study employs machine learning models using term frequency (TF) and term frequency-inverse document frequency (TF-IDF). Random forest using TF with Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) achieved a 0.9727 score of accuracy. Case 2 deals with quantitative analysis and investigates direct and indirect self-citation. In this study, the top 2% of researchers in 2020 is considered as a baseline. For this purpose, the data of the top 25 Pakistani researchers are manually retrieved from this dataset, in addition to the citation information from the Web of Science (WoS). The self-citation is estimated using the proposed model and results are compared with those obtained from WoS. Experimental results show a substantial difference between the two, as the ratio of self-citation from the proposed approach is higher than WoS. It is observed that the citations from the WoS for authors are overstated. For a comprehensive evaluation of the researcher's profile, both direct and indirect self-citation must be included.

Impact of country self citation on the ranking of the top 50 countries in clinical neurology

Objectives

To examine the factors that influence country self-citation rate (SCR) in clinical neurology and to assess the impact of self-citation on the ranking of the top 50 countries.

Methods

SCImago Journal & Country Rank was used to collect data for the 50 most cited countries in clinical neurology during 1996-2019. Country SCR was correlated with several productivity parameters and examined statistically. Countries that dropped in their ranking after the exclusion of self-citations were identified.

Results

The median (range) country SCR for the 50 most cited countries was 11.3%.(5.3%- 47%). Country SCR correlated significantly with total citable documents and total cites numbers and rankings. The exclusion of self-citations led to a drop in the ranking of 8(16%) countries only. No significant difference between the total and net total cites rankings was observed.

Conclusions

Self-citation can be appropriate and reflect an expansion on earlier research. Highly cited productive countries tend to have high country SCR. Excluding self-citations had minimal impact on the ranking of the top 50 countries. Our findings indicate that self-citation is unlikely to influence country standing amongst the top 50 and does not support the argument for eliminating self-citations from citation-based metrics. A more globalization through international collaboration in research is encouraged.

The Impact of Country Self-Citation Rate Among Medical Specialties in Saudi Arabia

Objectives The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of country self-citation rate (SCR) among medical specialties in Saudi Arabia, and to assess the impact of self-citations on the country's total cites world ranking in different specialties. Methods SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) was used to collect data related to all medical specialties in Saudi Arabia for the period 1996-2019. The country SCR for the specialties was correlated with several bibliometric parameters and examined statistically. The specialties that showed a drop in Saudi Arabia's total cites world ranking following the exclusion of self-citations were identified. Results The median country SCR for 46 specialties in Saudi Arabia was 9.5% (range: 4.6-23.1%). The two specialties with the highest country SCR were Public Health (23.1%) and Family Practice (22.9%). Country SCR was significantly higher in the non-clinical specialties compared to clinical specialties (15.3% vs. 9.6%). It did not correlate significantly with any of the examined productivity indices. The exclusion of self-citations resulted in a drop in Saudi Arabia's total cites world ranking in six (13%) specialties only. There was no significant difference between the country's total cites and net total cites world rankings in the specialties. Conclusions Self-citation may be appropriate and signify an expansion of the authors' previous work. Country SCR in medical specialties in Saudi Arabia is relatively low and not affected by total documents and total cites. Non-clinical specialties tend to self-cite more. The exclusion of self-citations had minimal effect on Saudi Arabia's total cites world ranking, indicating that country SCR in the specialties is unlikely to impact its international scientific standing. Our findings do not support the argument for eliminating self-citation from citation-based metrics. We believe that more collaborative and global research practices should be encouraged.

What Effect Does Self-Citation Have on Bibliometric Measures in Academic Plastic Surgery?

BACKGROUND

Research productivity plays a significant role in academic promotions. Currently, various bibliometric measures utilizing citation counts are used to judge an author's work. With increasing numbers of journals, numbers of open access publications, ease of online submission, and expedited indexing of accepted manuscripts, it is plausible that an author could influence his/her own bibliometric measures through self-citation. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of self-citation in academic plastic surgery.

METHODS

A cohort of full-time academic plastic surgeons was identified from 9 U.S. plastic surgery training programs. For all included faculty, academic rank was retrieved from department/division websites, and bibliometric measures were assessed using a subscription bibliographic citation database (Scopus, Reed Elsevier, London, UK). Bibliometric measures included the Hirsch index (h-index, the number of publications h which are cited ≥ h times), total number of publications, and total number of citations. The h-index and total number of citations were collected with and without self-citations. Percent changes in the h-index and total citations were calculated after removal of self-citations and compared across academic ranks and levels of research productivity (total publications, h-index, and total citations).

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 169 full-time academic plastic surgeons. The h-index and total citations experienced decreases of 2.8 ± 5.0% (P < 0.0001) and 4.5 ± 4.6% (P < 0.0001), respectively, after correction for self-citation. More than half of the cohort (n = 113, 67%) did not experience a change in the h-index after removal of self-citations. These decreases did not vary across academic rank. Surgeons who self-cited at rates greater than 5% were 9.8 times more likely (95% confidence interval, 4.5-21.9; P < 0.001) to have their h-index change as a result of self-citation (after adjusting for academic rank). There were weak correlations between percent decreases in the h-index and total citations and various biblimoteric measures (total publications, h-index, total citations; r < 0.32).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-citation has a minor impact on common bibliometric measures in academic plastic surgery. The influence of self-citation is consistent across academic ranks and increasing levels of bibliometric measures, suggesting that authors are not manipulating the system with increasing experience.

Aberration of the Citation

Multiple inherent biases related to different citation practices (for e.g., self-citations, negative citations, wrong citations, multi-authorship-biased citations, honorary citations, circumstantial citations, discriminatory citations, selective and arbitrary citations, etc.) make citation-based bibliometrics strongly flawed and defective measures. A paper can be highly cited for a while (for e.g., under circumstantial or transitional knowledge), but years later it may appear that its findings, paradigms, or theories were untrue or invalid anymore. By contrast, a paper may remain shelved or overlooked for years or decades, but new studies or discoveries may actualize its subject at any moment. As citation-based metrics are transformed into "commercial activities," the "citation credit" should be considered on a commercial basis too, in the sense that "citation credit" should be shared out as a "citation dividend" by shareholders (coauthors) averagely or proportionally to their contributions but not fully appropriated by each of them. At equal numbers of citations, the greater number of authors, the lower "citation credit" should be and vice versa. Overlooking the presence of distorted and subjective citation practices makes many people and administrators "obsessed" with the number of citations to such an extent to run after "highly cited" authors and to create specialized citation databases for commercial purposes. Citation-based bibliometrics, however, are unreliable and unscientific measures; citation counts do not mean that a more cited work is of a higher quality or accuracy than a less cited work because citations do not measure the quality or accuracy. Citations do not mean that a highly cited author or journal is more commendable than a less cited author or journal. Citations are not more than countable numbers: no more, no less.

The Effect of Self-Citations on the Hirsch Index Among Full-Time Academic Hand Surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To assess the magnitude of self-citation among a cohort of academic hand surgeons and estimate the effect of self-citation on the Hirsch index (h-index).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Hand Surgery.

RESULTS

The study sample comprised 364 full-time academic hand surgeons. Study subjects had an average of 45 ± 73 publications. The mean total number of citations was 800 ± 1738, the median number of self-citations was 2.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0-14.8), and the average frequency of self-citation was 2.2% ± 3.7%. Older surgeons were slightly less likely to self-cite (coefficient = 0.07; p = 0.001). Furthermore, as the total number of publications increased, the frequency of self-citation increased (coefficient = 0.03; p < 0.001). The h-index increased because of self-citation in 57 surgeons (15.7%). After adjusting for American Society for Surgery of the Hand status and academic rank, increasing rates of self-citation were associated with an increase in the h-index. Surgeons with 7 or more self-citations were more likely to have their h-index influenced by self-citation.

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of self-citation among full-time academic hand surgeons affiliated with fellowship programs is fairly low. For most of the surgeons, self-citation did not affect the h-index.

Does Self-Citation Influence Quantitative Measures of Research Productivity Among Academic Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons?

PURPOSE

Quantitative measures of research productivity depend on the citation frequency of a publication. Citation-based metrics, such as the h-index (total number of publications h that have at least h citations), can be susceptible to self-citation, resulting in an inflated measure of research productivity. The purpose of the present study was to estimate the effect of self-citation on the h-index among academic oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was a cross-sectional study of full-time academic OMSs in the United States. The predictor variable was the frequency of self-citation. The primary outcome of interest was the h-index. Other study variables included demographic factors and citation metrics. Descriptive, bivariate, and regression statistics were computed.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 325 full-time academic OMSs. Most surgeons were men (88.3%); approximately 40% had medical degrees. The study subjects had an average of 23.5 ± 37.1 publications. The mean number of self-citations was 15 + 56. The sample's mean h-index was 6.6 ± 7.6 and was associated with self-citation (r = 0.71, P < .001). Approximately 9% of subjects had a change in their h-index after removing self-citations. After adjusting for PhD degree, total number of publications, and academic rank, an increasing self-citation rate influenced the h-index (r = 0.006, P < .001). Surgeons with more than 14 self-citations were more likely to have their h-index influenced by self-citation.

CONCLUSION

Self-citation among full-time academic OMSs does not substantially affect the h-index. Surgeons in the top quartile of self-citation rates are more likely to influence their h-index.

A generalized view of self-citation: direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation

The phenomenon of self-citation can present in many different forms, including direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. It can also pertain to the citation of single scientists, groups of scientists, journals, and institutions. This article presents some case studies of extreme self-citation practices. It also discusses the implications of different types of self-citation. Self-citation is not necessarily inappropriate by default. In fact, usually it is fully appropriate but often it is even necessary. Conversely, inappropriate self-citation practices may be highly misleading and may distort the scientific literature. Coercive induced self-citation is the most difficult to discover. Coercive Induced self-citation may happen directly from reviewers of articles, but also indirectly from reviewers of grants, scientific advisors who steer a research agenda, and leaders of funding agencies who may espouse spending disproportionately large funds in research domains that perpetuate their own self-legacy. Inappropriate self-citation can be only a surrogate marker of what might be much greater distortions of the scientific corpus towards conformity to specific opinions and biases. Inappropriate self-citations eventually affect also impact metrics. Different impact metrics vary in the extent to which they can be gamed through self-citation practices. Citation indices that are more gaming-proof are available and should be more widely used. We need more empirical studies to dissect the impact of different types of inappropriate self-citation and to examine the effectiveness of interventions to limit them.