How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess.

Autor/inn/en	Szomszor, Martin; Pendlebury, David A.; Adams, Jonathan
Titel	How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess.
Quelle	In: Scientometrics, (2020) 2, S.1119-1147 PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0138-9130
DOI	10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5
Schlagwörter	Self-citation; Citation analysis; Citation distribution; Outliers; Research evaluation; Self-references
Abstract	Abstract Citations can be an indicator of publication significance, utility, attention, visibility or short-term impact but analysts need to confirm whether a high citation count for an individual is a genuine reflection of influence or a consequence of extraordinary, even excessive, self-citation. It has recently been suggested there may be increasing misrepresentation of research performance by individuals who self-cite inordinately to achieve scores and win rewards. In this paper we consider self-referencing and self-citing, describe the typical shape of self-citation patterns for carefully curated publication sets authored by 3517 Highly Cited Researchers and quantify the variance in the distribution of self-citation rates within and between all 21 Essential Science Indicators’ fields. We describe both a generic level of median self-referencing rates, common to most fields, and a graphical, distribution-driven assessment of excessive self-citation that demarcates a threshold not dependent on statistical tests or percentiles (since for some fields all values are within a central ‘normal’ range). We describe this graphical procedure for identifying exceptional self-citation rates but emphasize the necessity for expert interpretation of the citation profiles of specific individuals, particularly in fields with atypical self-citation patterns.
Erfasst von	OLC
Update	2023/2/05