Impact Of Self-citation Research Articles

A global landscape analysis of the impact, trends, and dissemination in oral and maxillofacial surgery research

ObjectiveThis study aims to comprehensively analyze the global landscape of oral and maxillofacial surgery (OMFS) literature through bibliometrics. The research focuses on evaluating publication trends, influential topics, and the impact of scholarly works within the field. MethodsFollowing the principles of the Leiden Manifesto, a literature search was conducted using the Web of Science database, encompassing seven OMFS journals. A total of 18,218 publications were analyzed, with indicators such as publication language, geographic location, specialty, year, citation, and authorship examined. Statistical analyses, including Pearson correlation tests and angular coefficient calculations, were performed in RStudio. ResultsThe study revealed a strong upward trend in publications related to orthognathic surgery, trauma, and infections. Geographic analysis indicated a dominance of European and Asian contributions, with the USA leading in overall publications. The impact of self-citations was explored, emphasizing nuanced perspectives on their role in scholarly impact metrics. The data provided insights into the scholarly impact of OMFS publications, including the H-index, number of citations, and citing articles. ConclusionThe findings underscored potential global discrepancies in OMFS research, both geographically and in terms of topics covered. The study discussed the influence of language and journal impact on citation counts, emphasizing the role of English publications. Specific topics, such as trauma and infections, exhibited high scholarly interest and citation rates. Recommendations were made to encourage submissions on specific topics, such as cosmetic surgery and pathology, to enhance the diversity of OMFS literature. The study aims to foster international collaboration and leverage bibliometrics for evidence-based decision-making, educational strategies, and advancements in the dynamic field of oral and maxillofacial surgery.

Self-citation and its impact on scientific workflow assessment: The review of publications. Part I

The author reviews publications on the problem of self-citation and resulting mispresentations at the stage bibliometric analysis. He introduces the definition of self-citation and its special cases, i. e. author’s, institutional, publisher’s and disciplinary. The formulas for general self-citation metrics, i. e. self-citation and self-citedness coefficients, are provided. The global publications on author’s, institutional, national and journal self-citation are reviewed thoroughly. The current concepts of the role and impact of self-citation on scientific activity assessment are generalized. On the basis of his analytical review, the author argues that the researchers obtain consensus on several aspects, e. g.: а) excessive and absent self-citation are both seen as pathologies; в) self-citation has insignificant impact on large research entities though this influence can be critical when analyzing contributions by individual authors; с) self-citation impact is well-expressed for scientific entities with weak bibliometric indicators, while the top scientists, organizations, journals, etc., get most of external links. The author examines the response of bibliometric indicators and databases to self-citation manipulations to adjust the indicators.Part I of the review is intended to define the basic concepts and terms and to examine the most popular author’s self-citation.

Publication Patterns and the Impact of Self-Citation among General Surgery Residency Programs

Publication Patterns and the Impact of Self-Citation among General Surgery Residency Programs

An Analogy in Scientometric Journal Factors of Importance of Remote Sensing Journals

This paper aims at presenting the reputation and practice of SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Eigen Factor Score (ES) and Cite Score (CS) indicators in comparison with Journal Impact Factor. These scientometric instruments were summarized as an unconventional to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for quality judgment in the field of remote sensing. Governing factors were investigated across alternatives that included academia, researchers and scientist's apprehensions of procedures of scientific journal ranking, publication language, assessment, analysis time and self-citation impact. The SJR, ES, CS index and JIF scores and ranking order of selected remote sensing journals were downloaded from their appropriate websites and domains. Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients were measured to evaluate the correlation between these journal quality metrics. Selected coefficients were incorporated for rating relationships of elected variables and ranking methods. A beneficial correlation was noticed among the scores and ranking pattern based on SJR, ES, CS and JIF of the chosen remote sensing journals. Accordingly, specialist’s, scholar’s and a researcher’s in remote sensing may benefit from SJR, ES and CS indicators as substitutes to JIF for assessment of scientific journals in the concerned discipline.

Scholarly output and the impact of self-citation among surgical fellowship program directors

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study is to define the publication patterns and the impact of self-citation among program directors of surgical fellowships. MethodsProgram directors were identified through the respective fellowship accrediting council and association websites for eleven surgical subspecialties. Using the Scopus database, the number of publications, citations, self-citations, and h-indices were calculated. Results781 program directors were identified. The mean number ± SD of publications, citations, and h-index for the cohort were 74.6 ± 88.2, 2141 ± 3486, and 18.8 ± 14.5, respectively. The self-citation rate for the entire cohort was 3.17%. After excluding self-citations, the h-index remained unchanged for 72% of surgeons. After propensity score matching for h-index, colorectal surgeons (1.48%, p = 0.04) had significantly lower self-citation rates. ConclusionOverall, self-citation is infrequent among program directors of surgical fellowships. There is a lower rate of self-citation among colorectal surgeons when compared to program directors in other specialties with similar baseline metrics.

Prevalence and Impact of Self-Citation in Academic Orthopedic Surgery.

The h-index is a commonly utilized metric for academic productivity. Previous studies have proposed that self-citation may limit the utility of the h-index. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of self-citation on the h-index among orthopedic investigators. The study cohort consisted of program directors, chairpersons, and faculty at orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States. The Scopus database was used to determine the h-index and number of citations ± self-citations. The total number of publications was correlated with the change in the h-index via self-citation. A total of 463 researchers were included (198 National Institutes of Health-funded faculty, 147 chairpersons, 118 program directors). Of these researchers, 83.8% cited previous work at least once (mean, 123.9 ± 277.6). Self-citations accounted for 5.8% of all citations. Including these citations increased the author h-index from 18.5 ± 14.9 to 19.2 ± 15.6 (P < .001). A minority of researchers (36.3%, P < .001) had increased their h-index via self-citation (range, 0-11). The proportional increase in the h-index via self-citation was positively related to the number of publications (P < .001). While the practice of self-citation is prevalent in orthopedics, its impact on the h-index is minimal for most researchers. With more publications, researchers can increase their h-index to a greater degree via self-citation.

Comparison among Selected Journal Quality Indicators of Mechanical Engineering Journals

Objective: This paper investigated the possibility of advocating usage of SCImago Journal Rank (SJR), Eigenfactor Score and H5 index indicators as alternative to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF) for quality assessment in the field of mechanical engineering. Researchers and librarians concerns of methods of scientific journal ranking regarding publication language, analysis time and self-citation impact amongst other factors are addressed through suggested alternatives. Method: The SJR, ES, H5 index and JIF scores and ranking order of mechanical engineering journals were downloaded from the relevant websites. Pearson and Spear man’s correlation coefficients were calculated to test linear and monotonic hypotheses for association between different journal quality metrics. Selected coefficients were adopted for assessing linear and monotonic relationships of chosen variables and ranking values, respectively. Result: A very strong positive correlation was found between the scores and ranking order based on the SJR, ES, H5 and JIF of selected journals. Hence, academics and researchers in mechanical engineering are encouraged to use the SJR, ES and H5 indicator as an alternative to JIF for evaluation and judgment of scientific journals in the area.

Prevalence and Impact of Self-Citation in Academic Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, the h-index is being used to define scholarly output and promotion critieria.1 However, studies suggest that self-citation may limit the utility of the h-index via artificial inflation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence and impact of self-citation on the h-index in a cohort of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: The study cohort consisted of full-time surgeon faculty affiliated with a random selection of 34 integrated plastic surgery residency programs (50%). The Scopus database was used to determine the h-index and number of citations with and without self-citations. Total number of peer-reviewed publications was correlated with change in h-index via self-citation. RESULTS: A total of 247 plastic surgeons were included. 78.6% cited previous work at least once (mean 34.3 +/- 87.5 self-citations). These self-citations accounted for 4.8% of all citations. Including self-citations in bibliometric analyses increased h-indices from 9.5 +/- 6.9 to 10.2 +/- 7.6. A minority of researchers (20.1%) increased their h-index via self-citation by at least one integer value (range, 0–5). At a threshold delta h-index of 1, authors had on average 78 articles and an h-index of 18. As authors achieved more publications, they were able to increase their h-index via self-citation to a greater degree. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of self-citation is prevalent among plastic surgeon investigators, but its impact on the h-index is negligible for most authors. This finding suggests committees may disregard this factor for promotion. With more publications, researchers can increase h-indices via self-citation, but at a high threshold of published articles.

Impact of Self-Citations on Impact Factor: A Study Across Disciplines, Countries and Continents

Purpose. The present study is an attempt to find out the impact of self-citations on Impact Factor (IF) across disciplines. The study examines the number of research articles published across 27 major subject fields covered by SCImago, encompassing as many as 310 sub-disciplines. The study evaluates aspects like percentage of self-citations across each discipline, leading self-citing countries and continents, and the impact of self-citation on their IF. Scope. The study is global in nature, as it evaluates the trend of self-citation and its impact on IF of all the major subject disciplines of the world, along with countries and continents. IF has been calculated for the year 2012 by analyzing the articles published during the years 2010 and 2011. Methodology/Approach. The study is empirical in nature; as such, statistical and mathematical tools and techniques have been employed to work out the distribution across disciplines. The evaluation has been purely under-taken on the secondary data, retrieved from SCImago Journal and Country Ranking. Findings. Self-citations play a very significant part in inflating IF. All the subject fields under study are influenced by the practice of self-citation, ranging from 33.14% to 52.38%. Compared to the social sciences and the humanities, subject fields falling under the purview of pure and applied sciences have a higher number of self-citations, but a far lesser percentage than the social sciences and humanities. Upon excluding self-citations, a substantial amount of change was observed in the IF of subject fields under study, as 18 (66.66%) out of 27 subjects fields faced shuffle in their rankings. Variation in rankings based on IF with and without self-citation was observed at subject level, country level, and continental level.

Impact of Self-citation on the H Index in the Field of Academic Radiology

The Hirsch Index (H index) is widely applied as a metric of scientific productivity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of self-citation on the H index in academic radiology. Through the National Resident Matching Program's Web site, one third (47/139) of radiology residency programs were selected randomly. All chairpersons and full professors were included. Using the Scopus database, we calculated the H index as well as the number of cumulative citations with and without inclusion of self-citations. We determined the proportion of academic staff in which H index increased by one, two, or greater than two integers. We also correlated the proportional increase in H index before and after inclusion of self citations with the number of publications. A total of 487 academic staff (47 chair and 440 professors) was identified. Because of self-citation, mean ± SD of the H index increased from 13.7 ± 9.9 to 14.0 ± 10.2; mean ± SD of cumulative citations increased from 1804 ± 1889 to 1870 ± 1971. H index numbers did not change in 376/487 (77%) authors as a result of self-citation. There was no correlation between number of publications and proportional change of H index. The effect of self-citation is minimal in academic radiology, as evidenced by the fact that cumulative citations increase by only 2% and the large majority of H index values do not change by even a single integer after inclusion of self-citation.

The impact of self-citation

Citation rates are used to calculate journal impact factors and for measuring the personal impact of individual scientists (Aksnes, 2003; Fowler and Aksnes, 2007), which can affect chances of academic appointments, advance in career, pay increases and grant funding (Hyland, 2003; Adler, 2009). However, the current method used to calculate citation rates has its limitations. The most widely used index published by the Institute of Scientific Information is the 2-year impact factor (Della Sala and Grafman, 2007, 2009) which calculates citation rate by summing the total citations during a given year to articles published in the previous two years and dividing this by the number of ‘source items’. What constitutes a ‘source item’ is unclear, but the number of source items can obviously affect citation rate (see Della Sala and Brooks, 2008), and can be manipulated to affect journal impact factor (see Brumback, 2009). Journal impact factors can also be highly influenced by the publication of a few highly cited papers (Buchtel and Della Sala, 2006) and it has been suggested that around 20% of all articles tend to account for 80% of all citations. In addition, it has been argued that the arbitrarily set time window of two-years disadvantages slowmoving disciplines, such as neuropsychology (Della Sala and Crawford, 2006, 2007; Della Sala and Grafman, 2009). Another factor that may affect citation rate is self-citation. Authors may choose to cite their own work in order to make their earlier work visible, to help reinforce an argument, to create an image of scientific authority (Hyland, 2003) or simply for self-aggrandizement (Hyland, 2003; Fowler and Aksnes, 2007). Self-citation can inflate the perception of an article’s or a scientist’s scientific impact, particularly when an article has many authors, increasing the possible number of self-citations (Schreiber, 2007; Della Sala and Brooks, 2008), and thus there have been calls to remove self-citations from citation rates (Schreiber, 2007). However, Fowler and Aksnes (2007)

Playing the system puts self-citation's impact under review

Playing the system puts self-citation's impact under review

Does self-citation pay?

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.

Use of bibliometric information to assist research policy making. A comparison of publication and citation profiles of Full and Associate Professors at a School of Chemistry in Uruguay

Publication and citation profiles of Full and Associate Professors at the School of Chemistry of the Universidad de la Republica in Uruguay were investigated. The groups do not exhibit markedly different age averages. However, the average time since they started publishing, as well as other characteristics of their publication records, like productivity or citations, set them apart. From the point of view of both the number of papers per author and per year of activity, on one side, and of the number of citations per year of activity, on the other, the group of Full Professors has statistically significant larger averages than the Associate Professors. The impact of self-citations, multi-authorship and internationalization of the publications were analyzed within the two groups and shown to have no excessive or predictable influence on those parameters, except in the case of few (≤ 2) or many (>8) authors. It is suggested in this paper that these two indicators, number of papers per author per production year and number of citations per production year, combined in a plot allowing a bidimensional ranking of the individuals in the groups, may be used profitably as one of the components in the development of a policy toward promotion of Associate Professors. The analysis showed also that the quotient of citations received to number of papers published, even when derived from actual citation data of the scientists without involving the impact factors of the journals in which they publish, are not good parameters to use for that purpose, essentially because there is a reduction in the information content of the indicator with respect to those described before.