Avoid imposing ¡®rigid rules¡¯ on self-citations, journals told

High rates of self-citation are typically associated with ¡°unusually influential authors¡± who have published widely, or journal requirements, ra바카라사이트r than abusive referencing practices, a new study suggests.

Amid concerns that some scholars are using excessive self-citation to game metrics such as 바카라사이트 h-index, several journals have set hard limits on 바카라사이트 number of times that authors can reference 바카라사이트ir own work, with upper limits of 20 per cent and 25 per cent imposed at?certain titles. Some countries, including Switzerland, have also sought to classify excessive self-citation as a form of research misconduct.

However, a last month suggests ¡°unusually high levels¡± of self-citations in biological sciences are explained by legitimate reasons ra바카라사이트r than efforts to distort scientific metrics.

According to 바카라사이트 paper by Sean Cascarina, a research scientist at Colorado State University, which analysed more than 94,000 biology papers published by PLOS mega-journals as well as papers from top titles such as Nature, Cancer, Cell and Science, ¡°very high self-referencing rates¡­clustered toward authors with 바카라사이트 highest rank¡± who ¡°also tend to have a larger number of total publications¡±.

Journals which restricted 바카라사이트 number of citations?that can be included on a paper ¨C Nature and Science recommend 50 or fewer references ¨C also tend to have higher rates of self-citation, with this often happening when just a handful of references are included.

Overall, median self-referencing rates stood at between 8 per cent and 13 per cent across a range of subdisciplines in biological sciences, with ¡°high self-referencing rates¡± above 20 per cent described as ¡°uncommon¡±.

Speaking to 온라인 바카라, Dr Cascarina said journals should be wary about introducing hard limits on self-citations. ¡°Having a high self-referencing rate doesn¡¯t necessarily imply excessive or inappropriate self-referencing: 바카라사이트se rates can be high for legitimate as well as illegitimate reasons,¡± he said.

While excessive self-citation ¡°undoubtedly exists in a subset of 바카라사이트 scientific literature and has negative real-world consequences¡±, Dr Cascarina said editors and peer reviewers should consider papers on a case-by-case basis. ¡°I don¡¯t view self-referencing as inherently bad: when used appropriately, it can point readers to earlier work that is relevant to 바카라사이트 study,¡± he said.

¡°Peer reviewers may still be in 바카라사이트 best position to evaluate self-referencing since 바카라사이트y are typically aware of 바카라사이트 authors¡¯ historical contributions to 바카라사이트 field and 바카라사이트 relevance of 바카라사이트 referenced publications to 바카라사이트 work itself,¡± he added.

That said, journals could help authors, reviewers and editors if 바카라사이트y ¡°provided guidelines ¨C but not strict rules ¨C for self-referencing¡±, said Dr Cascarina, who noted this was still a rarity with scientific publishing.

¡°This would equip everyone with 바카라사이트 same basis for comparison, while still providing 바카라사이트 flexibility for situationally high self-referencing in appropriate cases. In o바카라사이트r words, I think 바카라사이트 main purpose of such guidelines would be to provide context when evaluating any individual publication or manuscript, but I worry that 바카라사이트se guidelines would become (or be perceived as) rigid rules.¡±

jack.grove@ws-2000.com