Self-citation policies and journal self-citation rate among Critical Care Medicine journals

Self-referencing rates in biological disciplines

The use of citation counts (among other bibliometrics) as a facet of academic research evaluation can influence citation behavior in scientific publications. One possible unintended consequence of this bibliometric is excessive self-referencing, where an author favors referencing their own publications over related publications from different research groups. Peer reviewers are often prompted by journals to determine whether references listed in the manuscript under review are unbiased, but there is no consensus on what is considered "excessive" self-referencing. Here, self-referencing rates are examined across multiple journals in the fields of biology, genetics, computational biology, medicine, pathology, and cell biology. Median self-referencing rates are between 8-13% across a range of journals within these disciplines. However, self-referencing rates vary as a function of total number of references, number of authors, author status/rank, author position, and total number of publications for each author. Importantly, these relationships exhibit interdisciplinary and journal-dependent differences that are not captured by examining broader fields in aggregate (e.g., Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.). These results provide useful statistical guidelines for authors, editors, reviewers, and journals when considering referencing practices for individual publications, and highlight the effects of additional factors influencing self-referencing rates.

Global trends and current status of distraction osteogenesis: Bibliometric analysis of publications from 1980 to 2021

Introduction: Distraction osteogenesis (DO) has become an important technology for the correction of various congenital and acquired skeletal ridge deformities. It is widely used in oral and maxillofacial surgery, orthopedics, and other disciplines. From 1980 to 2021, the cutting-edge research of DO has been continuously promoted, and the interaction between disciplines has also been deepening. However, the analysis on the global trend and status of DO is relatively rare. Therefore, the aim of our study was to summarize the global trends and current status of DO through bibliometrics. Materials and methods: Web of Science (WOS) core collection database and Medline were used to search DO-related literatures published during 1980-2021. The collected data are imported into Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, VOSviewer software for analysis and drawing figure/table. Results: A total of 7,721 publications were included in this study. The United States is the main contributing country to DO (ranking first in terms of total publications, sum of times cited and H-index). Harvard University was the main contributing institution to DO. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery is the main contributing journal of DO related articles. Buchman, SR is the main contributing author to DO related articles. DO related publications can be summarized into 7 clusters: 1) "mechanism study", 2) "limb bone distraction study", 3) "alveolar bone distraction study", 4) "temporomandibular joint ankylosis study", 5) "maxillofacial surgery study", 6) "skull distraction study" and 7) "mandible distraction study". Mandible distraction study has been a hot topic in recent years. In addition, the "management", "osteogenesis" and "reconstruction" of DO have been the research hotspots from 1980 to 2021. Conclusion: From 1980 to 2021, the total number of DO articles has increased rapidly and maintained a steady trend. The United States is the predominant country in the field. Surgery, dental, and oral surgery and orthopaedics are hot fields of DO research. The study of mandible distraction has been paid more and more attention and will become a hotspot in the future. Our study is beneficial for scientists to specify the research hotspot and development direction of DO.

Factors, components and dynamics: investigation of journal self-citation and citation by equal opportunity model

The effectivity of journal impact factor (JIF) is questioned in evaluating academic players. Coercive self-citation was widely criticized and Clarivate annually suppressed journals with high journal self-citation (JSC) rates. Recently, some journals significantly increased their articles but their JIFs and JSC rates were diversified which lacks reasonable explanations. Here, we revealed the complexities of the dynamical interactions among different influence factors and different components of journal citation. Journal citation frequencies have strong correlations with JSC rates regarding citable items, significant correlations with numbers of journals' articles and negative significant correlations with JSC rates regarding total citations. Journal citation consists of JSC, intradisciplinary non-JSC and interdisciplinary non-JSC. JSC has the quickest dynamic and interdisciplinary non-JSC has the slowest dynamic while most journals are more cited by interdisciplinary citations. Journal citation is initially decided by the number of citable items. Journal's share (citing articles) in related disciplines influence JSC and intradisciplinary non-JSC positively and negatively, respectively. Multiple citations promoted by the increase in articles, the skewness of the topic profile, preference-related self-citation and anomalous self-citation are of benefit to citation. The complex dynamical interactions result in increment effects of the number of articles acting on JIF, which is stronger for JSC and citable items. The increase in articles also promotes intradisciplinary non-JSC when the journal's shares in related disciplines are low. This process will be reversed after the journal's shares become high enough which may finally decrease its impact factor. It is quicker for the journal with a stronger intradisciplinary citation. The calculational results of the average JIFs of selected journals agree with the statistical results. In addition, we can explain the related situations of some journals. Finally, we suggested that the JSC rate in terms of citable items should be considered for judging the level of JSC.

Retracted systematic reviews were continued to be frequently cited: A Citation Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To survey the citations of retracted non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) in scientific literature .

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched the Web of Science and Google Scholar from their inception to 30 April 2020 to find the citations of 153 previously identified retracted non-Cochrane SRs. We calculated the numbers of citations before and after retraction separately. We also described how the citation addressed the retraction and how it was used in the article.

RESULTS

A We identified 954 citations of 128 retracted SRs. The number of retracted SRs and citations reached the peak in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and the majority of the citations (n=580, 60.8%) were in articles published after the SR was retracted. The mean number of citation per retracted SRs was 7.5. 2.6 before and 4.5 after the publication of the retraction notice. Twenty-nine (5.0%) citations indicated the retraction of the SRs in the reference section. Nine of these citations supported the retracted SR's results, and 15 disagreed with them.

CONCLUSION

Retracted SRs continue to be cited after the publication of the retraction notice. Standardized methods are needed to guide the management of retractions and avoid inappropriate citations of retracted articles.

The influence of policies limiting author self-citations on journals impact factor and self-citation rate in respiratory system

To assess the presence of journal policies discouraging inappropriate author's self-citation (A-SC) in "Respiratory System" journals, we evaluated submission guidelines of "Respiratory System" journals included in Journal-Citation Reports 2020 (Clarivate Analytics^®) for the presence of policies on A-SC and its impact on journals' self-citation (J-SC) rate and impact factor (IF). We found that 14.3% of journals (n=8/56) reported policies on inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was not different in "Respiratory System" journals with (3.6; IQR:2.3) vs without A-SC policies (3.1; IQR:3.0; p=0.41). The J-SC rate was not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p=0.83). Fully open-access (n=14) and traditional (n=42) journals had no differences in IF (3.3; IQR:1.5 vs 3.1; IQR:3.4, respectively; p=0.77) and J-SC rate (4.5%; IQR:5.6 vs 6.2%; IQR:8.4, respectively; p=0.38). The majority of "Respiratory System" journals do not have policies discouraging A-SC. The presence of such policies is not associated with changes in IF or J-SC rates.

Author Self-Citation in the Turkish Otorhinolaryngology Literature

Objective:

To evaluate the prevalence and other characteristics of author self-citations in six Turkey-originated general otorhinolaryngology (ORL) journals of Turkish ORL literature.

Methods:

A total of 970 articles published in six Turkey-originated general ORL journals (ENT Updates, Journal of Ear Nose Throat and Head Neck Surgery, KBB-Forum, Praxis of Otorhinolaryngology, The Turkish Journal of Ear Nose and Throat, and Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology) in 2016-2020 were analyzed for author self-citations. The association between author self-citations and journal types, study types, study topics, country of origin, and compatibility with the topic were also evaluated.

Results:

There were 265 author self-citations (0.273 per article) which corresponded to 1.36% of all citations. There was no significant difference between the journal types, study topics, and origin of the studies in terms of mean self-citation values per study, whereas case reports had significantly lower self-citations than review and original investigations. There were three citations (1.1%) that were irrelevant to the study topic.

Conclusion:

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that investigated the practice of author self-citation in Turkish ORL literature. Author self-citation rate in the Turkish-originated general ORL journals was found remarkably lower than the medical literature, whereas the self-citations were found compatible with the study topic to a very large extent. Members of the scientific community including authors, readers, and journal editors should be cautious regarding the unethical practices of self-citations.