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

Sanfilippo F., Astuto M., Tigano S., La Rosa V., Morgana A., Zanghì A., Cappellani A.

Sanfilippo F., Tigano S., Morgana A., Murabito P., Astuto M.

Inappropriate authors’ self-citation (A-SC) is a growing mal-practice possibly boosted by the raising importance given to author’s metrics. Similarly, also excessive journals’ self-citation (J-SC) practice may factitiously influence journal’s metrics (impact factor, IF). Evaluating the appropriateness of each self-citation remains challenging. We evaluated the presence of policies discouraging A-SC in Critical Care Medicine (CCM) journals with IF. We also calculated the J-SC rate of these journals. In order to evaluate if J-SC rates are influenced by the focus of interest of CCM journals, we separated them in three sub-categories (“multidisciplinary”, “broad” or “topic-specific” CCM journals). We analyzed 35 CCM journals and only 5 (14.3%) discouraged excessive and inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was higher in CCM journals with A-SC policies [4.1 (3–12)] as compared to those without [2.5 (2–3.5); p = 0.02]. The J-SC rate was highly variable (0–35.4%), and not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p = 0.32). However, J-SC rate was different according to the focus of interest (p = 0.01): in particular, it was higher in “topic-specific” CCM journals [15.3 (8.8–23.3%)], followed by “broad” CCM [11.8 (4.8–17.9%)] and “multidisciplinary” journals [6.1 (3.6–9.1%)]. A limited number of CCM journals have policies for limiting A-SC, and these have higher IF. The J-SC rate among CCM journals is highly variable and higher in “topic-specific” interest CCM journals. Excluding self-referencing practice from scientific metrics calculation could be valuable to tackle this scientific malpractice.

Sanfilippo F., Tigano S., Morgana A., Murabitol P., Astuto M.

Editor—Compulsory self-citation and artificial self-promotion represent poor publishing practice.1,2 Self-citations may be divided in author and journal self-citations (A-SC and J-SC, respectively). Although these are not related to each other, both should be considered during the review process.

Van Noorden R., Singh Chawla D.

Some highly cited academics seem to be heavy self-promoters — but researchers warn against policing self-citation. Some highly cited academics seem to be heavy self-promoters — but researchers warn against policing self-citation.

Cortegiani A., Sanfilippo F., Tramarin J., Giarratano A.

To evaluate the characteristics and practice of predatory journals in critical care medicine (CCM).We checked a freely accessible online and constantly updated version of the Beall lists of potential predatory publishers/journals in the field of CCM. We checked the journals' websites to retrieve the following data such as: 1) Country and address (checked by Google maps); 2) Article processing charges (APC); 3) Indexing; 4) Editor-in-chief and the Editorial Board (EB) members; 5) Number of published articles; 6) Review time (lapse submission-acceptance); 7) English form.We identified 86 CCM journals from 48 publishers. Most journals' reported address was in the US (52%). The address was unreliable in 43%. English form was low/very-low in 72% of cases. Three journals were indexed in PubMed. Several journals reported false indexing in the Committee on publication ethics (COPE), International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and Google Scholar. Median APCs for research article was 909.5 USD. Name of the Editor-in-chief and EB lists were reported by 29% and 81%, respectively. Median lapse submission-acceptance for published articles was 32 days.We found a relevant number of probable predatory CCM journals. Scientists should carefully check journal's characteristics to avoid selecting predatory journals as editorial target.

Cortegiani A., Longhini F., Sanfilippo F., Raineri S.M., Gregoretti C., Giarratano A.

Predatory publishing is an exploitative fraudulent open-access publishing model that applies charges under the pretense of legitimate publishing operations without actually providing the editorial services associated with legitimate journals. The aim of this study was to analyze this phenomenon in the field of anesthesiology and related specialties (intensive care, critical and respiratory medicine, pain medicine, and emergency care). Two authors independently surveyed a freely accessible, constantly updated version of the original Beall lists of potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers and standalone journals. We identified 212 journals from 83 publishers, and the total number of published articles was 12,871. The reported location of most publishers was in the United States. In 43% of cases (37/84), the reported location was judged as "unreliable" after being checked using the 3-dimensional view in Google Maps. Six journals were indexed in PubMed. Although 6 journals were declared to be indexed in the Directory of Open Access Journals, none were actually registered. The median article processing charge was 634.5 US dollars (interquartile range, 275-1005 US dollars). Several journals reported false indexing/registration in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors registries and Google Scholar. Only 32% (67/212) reported the name of the editor-in-chief. Rules for ethics/scientific misconduct were reported in only 24% of cases (50/212). In conclusion, potential or probable predatory open-access publishers and journals are widely present in the broad field of anesthesiology and related specialties. Researchers should carefully check journals' reported information, including location, editorial board, indexing, and rules for ethics when submitting their manuscripts to open-access journals.

Hemmat Esfe M., Wongwises S., Asadi A., Karimipour A., Akbari M.

This paper defines and discusses two important types of citations, self-citation and mandatory citation, in engineering journals. Citation can be classified in three categories: optional; semi-mandatory; and mandatory. There are some negative and positive impacts for the authors’ paper and journals’ reputation if mandatory citation of a paper or set of papers is requested. These effects can be different based on the recommended papers for citing in the new research. Mandatory citation has various types discussed in this paper. Self-citation and its reasons and impacts are also discussed in the present study.

Tighe P., Rice K.J., Gravenstein N., Mark J. R.

After submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed anesthesia journal, several authors were asked to cite additional references from the journal to which they submitted. We hypothesized that there were differences among the anesthesiology journals in both the total number of self-citations and the proportion of self-citations to the total number of references in each manuscript for the years 2005 and 2010.We conducted a review of a sample of manuscripts from 2005 and 2010 to examine the number and rate of self-citations. As a secondary analysis, we reviewed impact factor (IF), rate of self-referencing, and contribution of self-citations to IF in the population of manuscripts published in 8 anesthesia journals between 2000 and 2009 using the ISI Journal Citation Reports.The number (P < 0.0001) and rate (P < 0.0001) of self-citations among the different journals were significantly different in 2005, with similar results for 2010 in the number (P < 0.0001) and rate (P = 0.0002) of self-citations. The mean range of number of self-citations ranged from 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.84) to 3.95 (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.7) in 2005 and from 0.25 (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.55) to 4.5 (95% CI, 2.2 to 6.9) in 2010. On a per-journal basis, no difference in the number of self-citations was noted between 2005 and 2010. Analysis of the ISI Journal Citation Reports from 2000 to 2009 suggested a general decline in the contribution of self-cites to the IF over time for the aggregate journals (Spearman correlation coefficient (Rs) -0.25 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.03), P = 0.02), with the exception of the journal in question (Rs = 0.59 (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.88), P = 0.05). Positive correlations were found between self-cited rate and IF (Rs 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.66, P < 0.0001), percentage of self-cites to years used in IF calculation and IF (Rs 0.41, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.58, P < 0.0001), and δ-IF and IF (Rs 0.89, 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.93, P < 0.0001).Although the number and rate of self-citations differed among anesthesia journals, the contribution of self-citation to IF has declined over time for most anesthesia journals. These results suggest periodic reassessment may be important to ensure that the publication process remains transparent and impartial to bias.

Fowler J.H., Aksnes D.W.

Self-citations — those where authors cite their own works — account for a significant portion of all citations. These self-references may result from the cumulative nature of individual research, the need for personal gratification, or the value of self-citation as a rhetorical and tactical tool in the struggle for visibility and scientific authority. In this article we examine the incentives that underlie self-citation by studying how authors’ references to their own works affect the citations they receive from others. We report the results of a macro study of more than half a million citations to articles by Norwegian scientists that appeared in the Science Citation Index. We show that the more one cites oneself the more one is cited by other scholars. Controlling for numerous sources of variation in cumulative citations from others, our models suggest that each additional self-citation increases the number of citations from others by about one after one year, and by about three after five years. Moreover, there is no significant penalty for the most frequent self-citers — the effect of self-citation remains positive even for very high rates of self-citation. These results carry important policy implications for the use of citations to evaluate performance and distribute resources in science and they represent new information on the role and impact of self-citations in scientific communication.

Grillo R., Quinta Reis B.A., Lima B.C., Peral Ferreira Pinto L.A., Melhem-Elias F.

Quincho-Lopez A.

Introduction Journal self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of a journal and to some metrics like the impact factor. However, little is known about the extent of journal self-citations in COVID-19 research. This study aimed to determine the journal self-citations in COVID-19 research and to compare them according to the type of publication and publisher. Methods Data in COVID-19 research extracted from the Web of Science Core Collection 2020–2023 was collected and further analyzed with InCites. The journals with the highest self-citation rates and self-citation per publication were identified. Statistical comparisons were made according to the type of publication and publishers, as well as with other major infectious diseases. Results The median self-citation rate was 4.0% (IQR 0–11.7%), and the median journal self-citation rate was 5.9% (IQR 0–12.5%). 1,859 journals (13% of total coverage) had self-citation rates at or above 20%, meaning that more than one in five references are journal self-citations. There was a positive and statistically significant correlation of self-citations with the other indicators, including number of publications, citations, and self-citations per publication (p<0.001). Editorial materials contributed more to journal SC with a median self-citation rate of 5%, which was statistically higher than other documents such as articles, letters or reviews (p<0.001). Among the top twelve publishers, the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute had a median self-citation rate of 8.33% and was statistically higher than the rest (p<0.001). Self-citation rates for COVID-19 were lower than tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS, but self-citations per publication of these diseases were statistically lower than those for COVID-19 (p<0.001). Conclusion Some journals from the Web of Science Core Collection displayed exorbitant journal self-citation patterns during the period 2020–2023. Approximately, one in every five paper references in COVID-19 is a journal self-citation. Types of publication such as editorials engage in this practice more frequently than others, suggesting that in COVID-19 research, self-citing non-citable items could potentially contribute to inflate journal impact factors during the pandemic.

Sanfilippo F., Messina A., Corradi F., Robba C.

Rodionova Y.V.

.