Self-Enhancement in Scientific Research: The Self-citation Bias

Abstract

A typical psychology article contains 3 to 9 self-citations, depending on the length of the reference list (10% of all citations). In contrast, cited colleagues rarely receive more than 3 citations. This is what we call the self-citation bias: the preference researchers have to refer to their own work when they guide readers to the relevant literature. We argue that this finding is difficult to understand within the traditional, science-based view, which says that reference lists are there to help the reader. It is more easily understood within a social view of reference lists which argues that scientists form groups and that reference lists partly reflect well-known phenomena in social psychology and group dynamics. Within this view, the self-citation bias is a self-serving bias motivated by self-enhancement and self-promotion. The self-citation bias in psychological scienceScientific publications are a never-ending source of inspiration, not only due to the information they contain but also because of the formal characteristics they adhere to. In particular the reference lists have been scrutinised recently with some quite remarkable findings. Below we summarise first the available evidence and we look then more specifically at the number of self-citations in journal articles and the reasons why authors cite themselves. The traditional, science-based view of reference listsReaders of scientific articles expect an article's reference list to comprise information about the publications they need for a good understanding of the article's contribution to the field (i.e., the cumulative nature of science) and for a replication of the reported studies if they wish to do so (i.e., the replicability of the findings). From this perspective, reference lists are at the readers' service, to help them find critical information. We will call this the traditional, science-based view of reference lists.

How to prepare a manuscript fit‐for‐purpose for submission and avoid getting a ‘desk‐reject’

“…Most scientists, however, frown upon excessive self‐citation. We agree with Sammarco's suggestion that ‘a viable approach probably lies in moderate citation of an author's own papers, only to the extent required to provide adequate background information’ and ask authors to avoid self‐citation bias …”

“…We agree with Sammarco's suggestion [10] that 'a viable approach probably lies in moderate citation of an author's own papers, only to the extent required to provide adequate background information' and ask authors to avoid self-citation bias. [11] PLAGIARISM Plagiarism is not permitted and self-plagiarism is an equally critical transgression. Sometimes authors repeat entire sections or multiple sentences of the experimental section from one of their previous papers, which is unacceptable.…”

Cross‐cultural differences in self‐promotion: A study of self‐citations in management journals

“…The difference between male and female self‐citation rates, ceteris paribus, is of the order of 3 to 4 percentage points. Models (3) and (4) show that the same results are found when a relative measure of self‐citations – as a percentage of the total number of references (as in Brysbaert & Smyth, ) – is used instead of an absolute measure. The dependent variable in these models is a dummy indicating articles in which 5 per cent or more of the cited references are self‐citations.…”

“…A second motive to selfcite is to construct greater credibility and to promote the authors' previous research. In this view, self-citations are used as a tool to seek personal gratification, appraisal, and promotion or as a rhetorical tool in the process of rendering previous work more visible and validated (Brysbaert & Smyth, 2011;Fowler & Aksnes, 2007). Hyland (2003) calls this type of citing behaviour a kind of 'academic egotism'.…”

The “Science of HRD Research”

“…Through text analysis and expert interview, Hyland (2003) has found that self-citing “reflect(s) both the promotional strategies of individuals and the epistemological practices of their disciplines” (p. 251). More recently, in scrutinizing four psychological journals published in 2006 and 2007, Brysbaert and Smyth (2011) have reported 0% to 45% of self-citation and concluded that it is “a self-serving bias motivated by self-enhancement and self-promotion” (p.129).…”