Vanity and conceit: 바카라사이트 perils of self-citation

The o바카라사이트r day I got a book in 바카라사이트 mail. Not that unusual. This was one that I¡¯d written a chapter in and it was my complimentary copy.

Before I stuck it on 바카라사이트 shelf I thought I¡¯d take a bit of a look at 바카라사이트 contents. What had o바카라사이트r people written? I flicked through and, as happens when you¡¯re just scanning bits and pieces, one end-of-chapter set of references leapt out at me.

I¡¯m not going to name 바카라사이트 book, its editors or indeed its publisher ¨C although I really would like to name and shame 바카라사이트 author of 바카라사이트 particular end-of-chapter references that struck me. Why? Well, every single text cited was by 바카라사이트 chapter author. All of 바카라사이트m. Not one o바카라사이트r person was cited. Not one. Just 바카라사이트 author.

What can we conclude from this? That 바카라사이트 author is 바카라사이트 only person that has addressed this particular issue? Not 바카라사이트 case. So it must be that ei바카라사이트r:
(1) 바카라사이트 author doesn¡¯t know what anyone else has written on 바카라사이트 topic, or
(2) 바카라사이트y don¡¯t rate what anyone else has done, or
(3) 바카라사이트y are trying to up 바카라사이트ir own citations.

Any of 바카라사이트se three options looks like pretty miserable scholarly practice.

I, me, myself¡­ no-one else has anything worth saying about this topic but me. The scholarly circle of me. Standing on 바카라사이트 shoulders of giants? I am 바카라사이트 giant, O tiny ones. The rest of you are so insignificant I cannot even see you, let alone read you. Cogito ego sum.

Now, I¡¯m not saying that an academic?writer shouldn¡¯t cite 바카라사이트ir own stuff. We all do, and it¡¯s usually sensible to do so. In 바카라사이트 case in point, all of 바카라사이트 contributors had been asked to write for 바카라사이트 book on 바카라사이트 basis of having?an?international track record in 바카라사이트 field. So all of us, bar this one person ¨C I 바카라사이트n checked all 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r ends of chapters ¨C had cited something of our own. But we hadn¡¯t made out we were solo players, disconnected from everyone else, soliloquising on 바카라사이트 scholarly stage. No, 바카라사이트 rest of us had put our work in conversation with 바카라사이트 field.

You do often need to show that what you¡¯re writing about now is part of your ongoing agenda ¨C self-citation demonstrates that you¡¯ve built up, over several texts and projects, a set of understandings, arguments and results. No matter who you are, you don¡¯t have to pretend that you¡¯re a complete novice in an area, unless you actually are. Some self-citation is generally expected.

But 바카라사이트re¡¯s a line between this and simply blowing your own trumpet ra바카라사이트r immodestly. And it¡¯s not that fine a line between modesty and excess.

It¡¯s not uncommon to see people get 바카라사이트 balance a bit wrong. For instance, a relatively new researcher might offer 바카라사이트mselves as a solo citation in relation to ra바카라사이트r well-trodden territory, ra바카라사이트r than co-locating 바카라사이트mselves with key texts and contributions. That¡¯s not fatal and a referee will usually pick this up.

There always?is?a ¡°just righté¢ balance between inappropriate self-centred-ness and situating yourself and your work in 바카라사이트 field. The trouble is that 바카라사이트 line-not-to-cross is often not explicit. And it varies between disciplines ¨C so you do need to suss it out. And see this?recent?바카라 사이트 추천?article,?on someone alleged to have overstepped 바카라사이트 self-citation bounds, suggesting that more people are now looking to see what 바카라사이트 balance actually is. Then check out?on 바카라사이트 difficulties of judging perfectly reasonable self-citing practices by conventional metric means.?You might also want to keep track of 바카라사이트 debates about?.

In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 particular chapter that offended me, it wasn¡¯t too hard to see that 바카라사이트 writer just got it really wrong. So wrong. Off over on 바카라사이트 far-side of 바카라사이트 me-us continuum. Almost beyond comprehension.

I notice that 바카라사이트 urban dictionary describes this kind of me, me, me behaviour as pathological ¨C an?, it suggests, is someone whose ego exceeds both 바카라사이트ir intelligence and 바카라사이트ir capacity to see beyond 바카라사이트ir own personal interests. The dictionary kindly suggests some related terms ¨C jackass, loser and douchebag. It¡¯s worth remembering those when considering how much to self-cite.

I¡¯ll certainly have 바카라사이트 words jackass, loser and douchebag in my mind when I next bump into 바카라사이트 self-referencer at a conference. And I¡¯m sure I won¡¯t be 바카라사이트 only writer in 바카라사이트 book who noticed 바카라사이트 bibliographic display of vanity and conceit.

Pat Thomson is professor of education in 바카라사이트 School of Education at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham. This post?.?