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.

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.

A Bibliometric Analysis of 4 Major Foot and Ankle Surgery Journals

Research publication is a central to the scientific process and comprehensive bibliometric analysis is a leading way to better understand trends within research. Currently, there are limited bibliometric analyses of literature pertaining to foot and ankle surgery. This study aims to quantify the volume of research and investigate what may affect publication and citation. Journals associated with the 3 major orthopedic foot and ankle societies (Foot & Ankle International[FAI], Foot and Ankle Surgery, and The Foot) and one podiatric college (Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery®) were evaluated from January 2009 to December 2018 using Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize article characteristics and regression modeling was used to determine factors associated with a country's current and future productivity and an article's citation rate. A total of 4994 articles were published over the 10-year period, with the largest contributor of publications being the United States of America (USA), who produced 2096 (41.8%) publications. Regression analysis found no association between a country's productivity and gross domestic product or population. There was no significant relationship between a country's baseline publication rate and future publication rate. The variables significantly associated with an increased citation count were; the number of years since publication, the number of authors, publication in FAI and if the article was a review. To our knowledge this is the largest bibliometric analysis of foot and ankle publications. The majority of research is being produced by the USA, but there are numerous complex factors associated with citation and publication rates. Further research is required to fully assess these factors and characterize the state of foot and ankle surgery research.

Do journals raise their impact factor or SCImago ranking by self-citing in editorials? A bibliometric analysis of trauma and orthopaedic journals

BACKGROUND

Impact factor (IF) is widely accepted as a measure of a journal's quality but it can be influenced by self-citation. However, the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) is based on journal prestige, excludes self-citation and considers quality of citations of a journal. This study aimed to investigate journal editors' use of self-citation and whether this correlated with IFs or SJR in trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) journals.

METHODS

T&O journals on the SJR database were identified. From each journal, data including country of publication, number of annual issues, IF, SJR indicator and citable articles were extracted. The editorial(s) of each issue in 2018 were reviewed. The total number of times the editors cited their own previous work or their journal (in the preceding 2 years, 2016-2017) were identified. Regression analyses were performed to investigate the association of editorial self-citation with journal IF or SJR indicator.

RESULTS

Of the 270 journals identified, 43 T&O journals with 151 editorials were included in the final analysis. A positive correlation between journal self-citation in the editorial and IF (P = 0.02) and SJR indicator (P = 0.02) was found. Citation by editors of their own publications within editorials also positively correlated with IF (P = 0.04) but not for SJR indicator (P = 0.19). There was a positive linear relationship between journal IF and SJR indicators (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Editor self-citation influences the IF and SJR indicators in T&O journals. Therefore, these metrics should be considered in conjunction with other factors such as audience, topics included and international presence when evaluating journals.

How has the dental literature evolved over time? Analyzing 20 years of journal self-citation rates and impact factors

Objective: As journal impact factors (IFs) can be artificially inflated by excessive journal self-citation practices, research quality evaluation based solely on IF ranking may be manipulated and, therefore, ethically challenged. This study aimed to analyze the longitudinal development of journal self-citation rates (SCRs) and IFs in dental literature and to determine possible confounders.Methods: Twenty-eight journals with scope within general dentistry and (sub)specialties listed in 1997-2016 Journal of Citation Reports^® were scrutinized. The following information was retrieved: publication year, total number of citations, number of self-citations, IF, corrected IF, and SCR.Results: Endodontic journals had the highest SCR (median = 35.3, IQR = 21.6-47.5), journals related to periodontics had the lowest (median = 14.7, IQR = 8.9-25.5). Periodontics had the highest IF (median = 2.1, IQR= 1.7-2.8) and general dentistry had the lowest (median = 0.9, IQR = 0.7-1.2). SCR significantly decreased over time (p < .0001) by 1 unit per year. Additionally, 1 unit increase in corrected IF resulted in 15.2 units decrease in SCR. IFs significantly increased 0.06 units per year (p < .000).Conclusions: Overall, favourable changes in citation metrics have been observed for dental journals during the 20-year observation period. SCR significantly decreased per observation year whereas IFs significantly increased, indicating a healthy publishing environment in the dental literature. SCR was regulated both by time and corrected IF.

Self-citation rate and impact factor in the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery

BACKGROUND

Journal ranking based on the impact factor (IF) can be distorted by self-citation. The aim of this study is to investigate the present status of self-citation in the plastic surgery journals and its effect on the journals' IFs.

METHODS

IF, IF without self-citations (corrected IF), self-cited rate, and self-citing rate for 11 plastic surgery journals were investigated from 2009-2015, by reviewing the Journal Citation Report^®. The correlations of the IF with the self-cited rate and the self-citing rate were statistically assessed. In addition, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery was compared with 15 top journals from other surgical specialties in 2015.

RESULTS

IF was significantly correlated with the self-cited rate (R: 0.594, p = 0.001) and the self-citing rate (R: 0.824, p < 0.001). The self-cited rate of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery in 2015 was higher than that of top journals from other surgical specialties. The IFs of Microsurgery and Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery increased greatly in recent years, but they were inflated by high self-cited and self-citing rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-citation rate positively affects the IF in plastic surgery journals. A high concentration of self-citation of some journals could distort the ranking among plastic surgery journals in general.

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.

Hepatitis B: global scientific development from a critical point of view

Hepatitis B is the tenth leading cause of death worldwide. Countries with high endemicity, such as China and Taiwan show high scientific productivity in this field and dominate the top ten list of the most productive authors worldwide, providing four of them. This is remarkable, as the USA and Europe usually maintain leading positions, not only regarding country-specific scientific productivity, but also top ten ranking of most productive and most cited authors in other important medical sectors. So far, a scientometric analysis of the topic 'hepatitis B' has not been generated despite an increased need for it in times of modified evaluation criteria for academic personnel and a subsequent tendency to co-authorship and author self-citation. In this study, scientometric methods and large-scale data analysis were used to evaluate quality and quantity of scientific research dealing with the topic 'hepatitis B' and to contribute to distinguish relevant research output. Data were gained from Pubmed and ISI-Web. In the time span of 1971-2011, 49 166 items were published by 250 countries, of which the USA have been the most productive supplier with 28% of all publications, followed in considerable distance by Germany, China, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Italy and Taiwan, respectively. The USA have established their position as centre of international cooperation. Their cooperation with China proves to be the most productive one. The most prolific journals in the field of hepatitis b were 'Hepatology', the 'Journal of Hepatology' and the 'Journal of Medical Virology'. h-index, citation rate and impact factor, commonly used for assessment of scientific quality, were determined and discussed critically with regard to distortion by bias of self-citation and co-authorship.

Scientific evaluation of the scholarly publications

Worthiness of any scientific journal is measured by the quality of the articles published in it. The Impact factor (IF) is one popular tool which analyses the quality of journal in terms of citations received by its published articles. It is usually assumed that journals with high IF carry meaningful, prominent, and quality research. Since IF does not assess a single contribution but the whole journal, the evaluation of research authors should not be influenced by the IF of the journal. The h index, g index, m quotient, c index are some other alternatives to judge the quality of an author. These address the shortcomings of IF viz. number of citations received by an author, active years of publication, length of academic career and citations received for recent articles. Quality being the most desirable aspect for evaluating an author's work over the active research phase, various indices has attempted to accommodate different possible variables. However, each index has its own merits and demerits. We review the available indices, find the fallacies and to correct these, hereby propose the Original Research Performance Index (ORPI) for evaluation of an author's original work which can also take care of the bias arising because of self-citations, gift authorship, inactive phase of research, and length of non-productive period in research.

The role of endocarditis, myocarditis and pericarditis in qualitative and quantitative data analysis

The current study is the first scientometric analysis of research activity and output in the field of inflammatory disorders of the heart (endo-, myo- and pericarditis). Scientometric methods are used to compare scientific performance on national and on international scale to identify single areas of research interest. Interest and research productivity in inflammatory diseases of the heart have increased since 1990. The majority of publications about inflammatory heart disorders were published in Western Europe and North America. The United States of America had a leading position in terms of research productivity and quality; half of the most productive authors in this study came from American institutions. The analysis of international cooperation revealed research activity in countries that are less established in the field of inflammatory heart disorder research, such as Brazil, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. These results indicate that future research of heart inflammation may no longer be influenced predominantly by a small number of countries. Furthermore, this study revealed weaknesses in currently established scientometric parameters (i.e., h-index, impact factor) that limit their suitability as measures of research quality. In this respect, self-citations should be generally excluded from calculations of h-index and impact factor.