The data set, which lists around 100,000 researchers, shows that at least 250 scientists have amassed more than 50% of their citations from themselves or their co-authors, while the median self-citation rate is 12.7%. The study could help to flag potential extreme self-promoters, and possibly 'citation farms', in which clusters of scientists massively cite each other, say the researchers.
In July, the Committee on Publication Ethics, a publisher-advisory body in London, highlighted extreme self-citation as one of the main forms of citation manipulation.
Although many scientists agree that excessive self-citation is a problem, there is little consensus on how much is too much or on what to do about the issue.
Last year, Indonesia's research ministry, which uses a citation-based formula to allocate funding for research and scholarship, said some researchers had gamed their scores using unethical practices, including excessive self-citations and groups of academics citing each other.
The idea of publicly listing individuals' self-citation rates, or evaluating them on the basis of metrics corrected for self-citation, is highly contentious.
Early-career scientists tend to have higher self-citation rates because their papers haven't had time to amass many citations from others.
Although the PLoS Biology study identifies some extreme self-citers and suggests ways to look for others, some researchers say they aren't convinced that the self-citation data set will be helpful, in part because this metric varies so much by research discipline and career stage.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7
In July, the Committee on Publication Ethics, a publisher-advisory body in London, highlighted extreme self-citation as one of the main forms of citation manipulation.
Although many scientists agree that excessive self-citation is a problem, there is little consensus on how much is too much or on what to do about the issue.
Last year, Indonesia's research ministry, which uses a citation-based formula to allocate funding for research and scholarship, said some researchers had gamed their scores using unethical practices, including excessive self-citations and groups of academics citing each other.
The idea of publicly listing individuals' self-citation rates, or evaluating them on the basis of metrics corrected for self-citation, is highly contentious.
Early-career scientists tend to have higher self-citation rates because their papers haven't had time to amass many citations from others.
Although the PLoS Biology study identifies some extreme self-citers and suggests ways to look for others, some researchers say they aren't convinced that the self-citation data set will be helpful, in part because this metric varies so much by research discipline and career stage.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02479-7
No comments:
Post a Comment