Trends in Self-Citation Rates in Neuroscience Literature: Insights into Citation Practices and Their Implications

Belangrijkste concepten

Self-citation rates in the Neuroscience literature have increased over time, with notable differences by author seniority, geographic location, gender, and research subfield. These trends provide insights into citation practices that shape the perceived influence of authors and the research that gets done.

Samenvatting

This study analyzed self-citation rates in over 100,000 Neurology, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry papers published between 2000-2020. The key findings include:

1. Increasing self-citation rates of Last Authors relative to First Authors over time, which could make it harder for early-career scientists to advance.

2. Lower self-citation rates in papers from low- and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries, potentially diminishing the visibility of researchers from these regions.

3. Gender differences in self-citation stemming from differences in the number of previously published papers, rather than differences in self-citation behavior itself. Men had significantly more publications than women, leading to higher self-citation rates.

4. Variations in self-citation rates across different Neuroscience research subfields, with clinical trial research having the highest self-citation rates.

The authors discuss how these trends in self-citation practices may impact the perceived influence of authors and the types of research that gets prioritized in the Neuroscience field. They provide a tool for authors to calculate their own self-citation rates and encourage awareness of self-citation patterns to promote more transparent and ethical citation practices.

Statistieken

"Self-citation rates have decreased at a rate of -1.21% per decade for First Authors and -0.18% per decade for Last Authors, while Any Author self-citation rates have increased at a rate of 0.32% per decade."
"Papers from low- and middle-income countries had 12.7% lower self-citation counts and 23.7% lower self-citation rates compared to non-LMIC institutions."
"At an academic age of 10 years, men were authors on an average of 42.32 papers, while women authored 30.09 papers on average."

Citaten

"Each self-citation leads to approximately three additional citations after five years."
"Excessive and unnecessary self-citations can possibly be limited by using appropriate citation metrics that cannot be easily 'gamed'."
"Future work should further consider the downstream effects of differences in the number of publications by gender."

Belangrijkste Inzichten Gedestilleerd Uit

Trends in Self-citation Rates in High-impact Neurology, Neuroscience, and Psychiatry Journals

by Rosenblatt,M... om www.biorxiv.org 09-28-2022

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.09.27.509533v3

Diepere vragen

How might the observed trends in self-citation rates impact the diversity and inclusivity of the Neuroscience research community in the long run?

The observed trends in self-citation rates, particularly the increasing self-citation rates of Last Authors compared to First Authors, could have significant implications for the diversity and inclusivity of the Neuroscience research community. As Last Authors are typically more senior researchers, often in positions of power and influence, their higher self-citation rates may perpetuate existing hierarchies within the field. This trend could disadvantage early-career researchers, who are often First Authors, by limiting their visibility and recognition in a competitive academic landscape.
Moreover, the lower self-citation rates observed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) may further exacerbate disparities in representation and influence within the global Neuroscience community. Researchers from LMICs may struggle to gain recognition and funding opportunities, leading to a lack of diversity in research perspectives and topics. This could ultimately hinder the advancement of Neuroscience as a field, as diverse viewpoints are essential for fostering innovation and addressing complex scientific questions.
In the long run, if these trends continue unchecked, they may reinforce existing biases and inequities, making it more challenging for underrepresented groups, including women and researchers from LMICs, to establish themselves and thrive in the academic environment. This could lead to a homogenization of research outputs and a narrowing of the scientific discourse, which is detrimental to the overall progress of the field.

What are potential interventions that journals, institutions, and funding agencies could implement to discourage excessive or unethical self-citation practices while still allowing appropriate self-referencing?

To address the issue of excessive or unethical self-citation practices while still permitting appropriate self-referencing, journals, institutions, and funding agencies can implement several strategic interventions:

Establish Clear Self-Citation Policies: Journals should develop and publish clear guidelines regarding acceptable levels of self-citation. These policies should define what constitutes excessive self-citation and provide thresholds based on field-specific norms. By setting these standards, journals can promote transparency and accountability among authors.

Implement Citation Audits: Journals could conduct regular audits of self-citation practices within published articles. This could involve analyzing citation patterns and flagging articles with unusually high self-citation rates for further review. Such audits would help identify potential cases of self-promotion and encourage authors to reflect on their citation practices.

Promote Awareness and Education: Institutions and funding agencies should provide training and resources to researchers on ethical citation practices. Workshops, seminars, and online resources can help authors understand the implications of self-citation and the importance of maintaining integrity in their work.

Encourage Collaborative Research: By fostering a culture of collaboration, institutions can help reduce the pressure on individual researchers to self-cite excessively. Collaborative projects often lead to more diverse authorship and citation practices, which can mitigate the tendency for self-promotion.

Incorporate Self-Citation Metrics in Evaluations: Funding agencies and institutions can include self-citation metrics as part of their evaluation criteria for grants and promotions. However, these metrics should be contextualized within broader performance indicators to avoid penalizing authors for legitimate self-referencing.

Utilize Technology for Monitoring: Journals and institutions can leverage technology, such as citation analysis tools, to monitor self-citation patterns in real-time. This data can inform policy adjustments and help identify trends that may require intervention.

By implementing these interventions, the academic community can strike a balance between allowing appropriate self-referencing and discouraging excessive self-citation practices that undermine the integrity of scientific research.

In what ways could the self-citation patterns observed in this study be connected to broader systemic issues, such as gender biases and inequities in academic publishing and career advancement?

The self-citation patterns observed in this study are intricately connected to broader systemic issues, particularly gender biases and inequities in academic publishing and career advancement. The findings indicate that men consistently self-cite at higher rates than women, a disparity that persists even when accounting for the number of previous publications. This suggests that the underlying issue is not merely one of opportunity but also reflects deeper biases in the academic system.

Underrepresentation of Women: The study highlights that women authors have fewer publications compared to their male counterparts, which limits their opportunities for self-citation. This underrepresentation in publication counts can be attributed to systemic barriers, such as gender bias in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions. As a result, women may find it more challenging to establish their academic presence and influence within the field.

Career Advancement Disparities: The observed trends in self-citation rates may also reflect the broader inequities in career advancement. Men, who tend to have higher self-citation rates, are often in more senior positions, which grants them greater visibility and influence. This creates a cycle where men are more likely to be recognized and rewarded for their work, further entrenching gender disparities in academic leadership roles.

Cultural and Institutional Norms: The differences in self-citation practices may also be influenced by cultural and institutional norms that favor male authors. For instance, the pressure to publish and self-promote may be more pronounced for men, who historically have had more access to resources and networks that facilitate academic success. This cultural bias can perpetuate a cycle of self-promotion that disadvantages women and other underrepresented groups.

Impact on Research Topics and Perspectives: The gender disparities in self-citation can lead to a lack of diverse perspectives in research topics and methodologies. If women and other marginalized groups are not adequately represented in the literature, the research landscape may become skewed, limiting the scope of inquiry and innovation in the field.

In summary, the self-citation patterns observed in this study are reflective of broader systemic issues related to gender biases and inequities in academic publishing and career advancement. Addressing these disparities requires a multifaceted approach that includes promoting diversity in authorship, implementing equitable policies, and fostering an inclusive academic culture that values contributions from all researchers, regardless of gender.