SIGMETRICS Digest - 7 Jul 2006 to 8 Jul 2006 (#2006-99)

David Watkins David.Watkins at SOLENT.AC.UK
Mon Jul 10 05:47:07 EDT 2006

Journal Self-Citation etc....

Academics are human beings; science is a social activity.

There does not need to be overt pressure to increase rates of self citation
over a hypothetical 'natural' level. Authors know that editors like to see
their journal 'used', and it is natural that any one paper will build on
similar work that is published in similar journals. Given an a choice to
cite work, even by the same author(s), in journal A or journal B in the
literature survey, which very often happens, a sensible new author will
cite the work in jA if s/he is submitting there, or vice versa.

The situation is compounded by the refereeing system. What assiduous author
does not try to identify potential referees - often members of the target
journal's Editorial Board - and ensure their work is cited, even if it is
actually marginal? This is a habit instilled at doctoral level: "for
goodness sake cite the intended external's work, and do so in a favourable

Even it this attempt to subvert the system fails, who has not experienced
the comment from an 'anonymous' referee, that the work of Dr X is
under-acknowledged, with copious examples, when it is clear to all that Dr
X is the refereee...? S/he is probably on the Editorial yet more
journal self-citations are added during the revison process.

Probably, since some authors 'work their way down' a ranked list of
journals until they get acceptance, initial decisions on who and what to
cite therefore also generate an enhanced 'Mathew Effect' which is imprinted
in the paper even when it is published lower down the pecking order -
although I've also known authors add and subtract citations during this
process (for the reasons above) without altering the paper itself in any
substantive way.

Not sure Open Access (a good idea suis generis) will impact this in any
way. But almost certainly new biases will be introduced. If the rules of
the game change, players respond (Vide UK RAE etc.....)

David Watkins

Professor David Watkins
Postgraduate Research Centre
Southampton Business School
Southampton Solent University
East Park Terrace
Southampton SO14 0RH

David.Watkins at
 023 80 319610 (Tel)
+44 23 80 31 96 10 (Tel)

02380 33 26 27 (fax)
+44 23 80 33 26 27 (fax)

Automatic digest processor <LISTSERV at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
09/07/2006 05:00

Please respond to ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics

Sent by:    ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics

To:    Recipients of SIGMETRICS digests <SIGMETRICS at LISTSERV.UTK.EDU>
Subject:    SIGMETRICS Digest - 7 Jul 2006 to 8 Jul 2006 (#2006-99)

There is one message totalling 104 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Self-Citation Bias and Open Access


Date:    Sat, 8 Jul 2006 18:01:59 +0100
From:    Stevan Harnad <harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK>
Subject: Self-Citation Bias and Open Access

Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 18:15:44 +0100 (BST)
From: [journalist, identity deleted]

> I am a journalist at [deleted]... investigating the phenomenon of
> [journal self-citation bias]
> I wonder if you could let me know... whether
> any journals... have rules that state that the author of a
> paper it publishes must cite other papers published in its journal.

I have heard rumours, several times now, that some journals have a
policy of encouraging or even requiring their authors to cite papers
in the same journal, in order to raise the journal's citation impact. I
do not have evidence of this, though others might. (I am branching the
query to the sigmetrics list.)

> Also, do you know of any academics who...
> have agreed to cite colleagues if they cite him/her?

That's even harder to track down, but soon it will be possible to track
both: There will be "endogamy/exogamy" indices for articles, authors and
journals, reflecting the degree to which their citation impact comes
from (1) self-citations, (2) citations to and from the same circle
of authors or co-authors, (3) citations to and from the same journal,
or small closed circle of journals, and (4) how this compares with the
pattern for other comparable authors, papers and journals, equated as
much as possible for subject matter and citation level.

Such studies are already possible, in principle, using the ISI citations
database, but the coverage there is not total (it only covers about the top
quarter of the journals published: 8000/24000). Once the research
institutions and funders mandate that their research journal article
output must be made openly accessible free for all on the web, it will
be possible to do exhaustive and rigorous analyses for (1)-(4) and much

    Shadbolt, N., Brody, T., Carr, L. and Harnad, S. (2006) The Open
    Research Web: A Preview of the Optimal and the Inevitable, in Jacobs,
    N., Eds. Open Access: Key Strategic, Technical and Economic Aspects,
    chapter 21. Chandos.

Practices that are openly detectable are also name-and-shame-able. Hence
Access is both the best way to monitor as well as to discourage dubious
Open Access will maximize legitimate research impact and its measurement,
minimizing abuses.

Stevan Harnad

> Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal
> Science Journals Artfully Try To Boost Their Rankings
> By SHARON BEGLEY June 5, 2006; Page B1
> John B. West...  Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Physiology at
> University of California, San Diego ...
> submitted a paper on the design of the human lung to the American
> Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. [A]n editor emailed
> that the paper was basically fine. There was just one thing: Dr. West
> should cite more studies that had appeared in the respiratory journal.
> ...Scientists and editors say scientific
> journals increasingly are manipulating rankings -- called "impact
> factors" -- that are based on how often papers they publish are cited by
> other researchers.
> ...Impact factors are calculated annually for some 5,900 science journals
> by Thomson Scientific, part of the Thomson
> <>  Corp., of
> Stamford, Conn. Numbers less than 2 are considered low. Top journals,
> such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, score in the
> double digits. Researchers and editors say manipulating the score is
> more common among smaller, newer journals, which struggle for visibility
> against more established rivals.
> ...Impact factors matter to publishers' bottom lines because librarians
> rely on them to make purchasing decisions...
> ...Self-citation can go too far. In 2005, Thomson Scientific dropped the
> World Journal of Gastroenterology from its rankings because 85% of the
> citations it published were to its own papers and because few other
> journals cited it....
> Journals can limit citations to papers published by competitors, keeping
> the rivals' impact factors down...
> Journals' "questionable" steps to raise their impact factors "affect the
> public," Ms. Liebert says. "Ultimately, funding is allocated to
> scientists and topics perceived to be of the greatest importance. If
> impact factor is being manipulated, then scientists and studies that
> seem important will be funded perhaps at the expense of those that seem
> less important."


End of SIGMETRICS Digest - 7 Jul 2006 to 8 Jul 2006 (#2006-99)

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list