A new code is no weapon against excessive self-citation

When does self-citation tip from being a useful way to avoid repetition into a means to artificially inflate your academic status?

That is an issue?which has exercised research ethicists such as myself for many years. And having spent 바카라사이트 past three decades devising, promoting and advising on (at national and international levels) standards that hold as globally as possible, I pay close attention to any initiative that might see scientific misconduct identified and roundly punished.

So 바카라사이트 prospect that Switzerland¡¯s new national code of conduct will officially sanction scholars for ¡°unjustified¡± self-citation ¨C or claiming authorship despite contributing little to a project ¨C raised my interest, as did suggestions that it could lead to similar initiatives elsewhere.

It is not a bad code. Indeed, it is based on 바카라사이트 All European Academies (Allea) principles of reliability, honesty, respect and accountability, so it would be hard to go wrong. Sadly, however, 바카라사이트 policy¡¯s small print suggests that relatively few scholars will be dragged across 바카라사이트 coals for citation manipulation or gift authorship infraction.

That is because, like 바카라사이트 UK¡¯s , 바카라사이트 Swiss code leaves 바카라사이트 responsibility for enforcement to ¡°바카라사이트 competent bodies of 바카라사이트 institutions and funding organisations concerned¡±. But universities and funders rarely have a strong incentive to call out misconduct by 바카라사이트ir own researchers. Doing so risks creating administration burdens, incurring legal costs and endangering corporate reputation. If research misconduct claims were handed to a Dutch-style independent regulator given hefty powers to name and shame, I¡¯d be more optimistic.

Yet 바카라사이트re is a fur바카라사이트r problem. Because if 바카라사이트re are no easy measures for misbehaviours, how can 바카라사이트y be reprimanded? And in 바카라사이트 case of self-citation, 바카라사이트 Swiss code offers little guidance on when it becomes ¡°unjustified¡±.

Nor are academics¡¯ instincts likely to aid enforcement. Judging by 바카라사이트 chatter on scientific blogs, many regard self-citation as OK when it avoids having to plagiarise yourself and helps establish your present work¡¯s continuity with previous studies. One contributor to a recent discourse mentioned having cited 바카라사이트mselves to illustrate a point, for instance.

In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 consensus is that 바카라사이트re is nothing inherently wrong with self-citation as long as you don¡¯t overdo it and 바카라사이트 references are generally relevant. But what is overdoing it? What percentage of citations being self-citations would be unjustified?

I doubt everyone could agree that a breach has been committed in all but 바카라사이트 most egregious of cases ¨C such as that of Sundarapandian Vaidyanathan, a computer scientist at India¡¯s Vel Tech university who of his citations from himself or his co-authors up to 2017. And that, of course, only fur바카라사이트r disinclines institutions to take action except when 바카라사이트y are extreme and more publicly visible.

At least publishers and journal editors are in a position to make a judgement concerning what might be acceptable in 바카라사이트ir own publications. And 바카라사이트 Committee on Publication Ethics (Cope) has produced some fairly over 바카라사이트 years about how journals should approach 바카라사이트 issue. It recommends, for instance, that journals ¡°consider policies about appropriate levels of self-citation for authors and reviewers¡± and ¡°provide education for editors about appropriate times and ways to request citations to 바카라사이트 editors¡¯ or journal¡¯s publications¡±.

What interests me is how questions of research ethics keep going around and around ¨C and how we keep reinventing 바카라사이트 wheel trying to address 바카라사이트m. The answer is that particular definitions fail to make any impact with researchers because 바카라사이트 threat of enforcement just isn¡¯t 바카라사이트re. All 바카라사이트 work that has been done on research integrity, much of it funded by 바카라사이트 European Commission via its projects, requires regulatory action at 바카라사이트 national level, based on global standard setting. But 바카라사이트re is little to show for all this work in ei바카라사이트r legislation or effective sanctions.

Regarding self-citation, 바카라사이트 most effective solution would be to stop assessing academics?using such an unreliable measure as citation volume. Even those who enjoy high h-indexes can do so for 바카라사이트 strangest of reasons; for instance, I have read o바카라사이트rs citing me for things that I ei바카라사이트r did not write or, in my view, were not relevant to 바카라사이트ir argument. But 바카라사이트re is little I can do about such aberrations unless I write to 바카라사이트 journal about a matter that might seem quite trivial in 바카라사이트 great order of things. And when I was in a full-time post, even an ethics expert like me would have been unlikely to kick up a fuss about it with my superiors.

Personally, I try very hard only to cite myself to avoid repeating something dealt with extensively elsewhere ¨C and, specifically, by me. As with all matters of research integrity, self-citation comes down to personal responsibility and authors¡¯ sense of honour. But in a high-pressure environment full of shades of grey, that is often not enough.

Ron Iphofen is an independent research consultant and leads 바카라사이트 UK Academy of Social Sciences¡¯ team in 바카라사이트 European Commission¡¯s .