IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2330-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing author self-citation as a mechanism of relevant knowledge diffusion

Author

Listed:
  • Ramiro H. Gálvez

    (Universidad de Buenos Aires)

Abstract

Author self-citation is a practice that has been historically surrounded by controversy. Although the prevalence of self-citations in different scientific fields has been thoroughly analysed, there is a lack of large scale quantitative research focusing on its usefulness at guiding readers in finding new relevant scientific knowledge. In this work we empirically address this issue. Using as our main corpus the entire set of PLOS journals research articles, we train a topic discovery model able to capture semantic dissimilarity between pairs of articles. By dividing pairs of articles involved in intra-PLOS citations into self-citations (articles linked by a cite which share at least one author) and non-self-citations (articles linked by a cite which share no author), we observe the distribution of semantic dissimilarity between citing and cited papers in both groups. We find that the typical semantic distance between articles involved in self-citations is significantly smaller than the observed one for articles involved in non-self-citations. Additionally, we find that our results are not driven by the fact that authors tend to specialize in particular areas of research, make use of specific research methodologies or simply have particular styles of writing. Overall, assuming shared content as an indicator of relevance and pertinence of citations, our results indicate that self-citations are, in general, useful as a mechanism of knowledge diffusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2017. "Assessing author self-citation as a mechanism of relevant knowledge diffusion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1801-1812, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2330-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2330-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2330-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-017-2330-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael H. MacRoberts & Barbara R. MacRoberts, 1989. "Problems of citation analysis: A critical review," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(5), pages 342-349, September.
    2. Maliniak, Daniel & Powers, Ryan & Walter, Barbara F., 2013. "The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(4), pages 889-922, October.
    3. Philip Ball, 2005. "Index aims for fair ranking of scientists," Nature, Nature, vol. 436(7053), pages 900-900, August.
    4. Victoria Anauati & Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2016. "Quantifying The Life Cycle Of Scholarly Articles Across Fields Of Economic Research," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1339-1355, April.
    5. Guang Yu & Ming-Yang Wang & Da-Ren Yu, 2010. "Characterizing knowledge diffusion of Nanoscience & Nanotechnology by citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(1), pages 81-97, July.
    6. Christoph Bartneck & Servaas Kokkelmans, 2011. "Detecting h-index manipulation through self-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 87(1), pages 85-98, April.
    7. Han Woo Park & Heung Deug Hong & Loet Leydesdorff, 2005. "A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 65(1), pages 3-27, October.
    8. Per O. Seglen, 1992. "The skewness of science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(9), pages 628-638, October.
    9. Dag W. Aksnes, 2003. "A macro study of self-citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 56(2), pages 235-246, February.
    10. Wolfgang Glänzel & Bart Thijs, 2004. "The influence of author self-citations on bibliometric macro indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 59(3), pages 281-310, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Paulo Henrique Santos Gonçalves & Thiago Gonçalves-Souza & Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque, 2020. "Chronic anthropogenic disturbances in ecology: a bibliometric approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1103-1117, May.
    2. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    3. Silvio Peroni & Paolo Ciancarini & Aldo Gangemi & Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese & Francesco Poggi & Valentina Presutti, 2020. "The practice of self-citations: a longitudinal study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(1), pages 253-282, April.
    4. Robert D. Brown & Tamanna Tasnum & YouJoung Kim, 2020. "Assessing U.S. Landscape Architecture Faculty Research Contribution," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-7, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Sebastian Galiani & Ramiro H. Gálvez, 2017. "The Life Cycle of Scholarly Articles across Fields of Research," NBER Working Papers 23447, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Seeber, Marco & Cattaneo, Mattia & Meoli, Michele & Malighetti, Paolo, 2019. "Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 478-491.
    4. Vîiu, Gabriel-Alexandru, 2016. "A theoretical evaluation of Hirsch-type bibliometric indicators confronted with extreme self-citation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 552-566.
    5. Mansour Haghighat & Javad Hayatdavoudi, 2021. "How hot are hot papers? The issue of prolificacy and self-citation stacking," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 565-578, January.
    6. John S. Liu & Louis Y. Y. Lu & Mei Hsiu-Ching Ho, 2019. "A few notes on main path analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 379-391, April.
    7. Martin Szomszor & David A. Pendlebury & Jonathan Adams, 2020. "How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1119-1147, May.
    8. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2723-2732, September.
    9. James Hartley, 2012. "To cite or not to cite: author self-citations and the impact factor," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 92(2), pages 313-317, August.
    10. Shahzad, Murtuza & Alhoori, Hamed & Freedman, Reva & Rahman, Shaikh Abdul, 2022. "Quantifying the online long-term interest in research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    12. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    13. Chen, Meiqian & Guo, Zhaoxia & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Herrera-Viedma, Enrique, 2021. "Citations optimal growth path: A tool to analyze sensitivity to citations of h-like indexes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    14. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    15. Tehmina Amjad & Ying Ding & Ali Daud & Jian Xu & Vincent Malic, 2015. "Topic-based heterogeneous rank," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 313-334, July.
    16. Thelwall, Mike & Fairclough, Ruth, 2015. "Geometric journal impact factors correcting for individual highly cited articles," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 263-272.
    17. Dean Hendrix, 2009. "Institutional self-citation rates: A three year study of universities in the United States," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(2), pages 321-331, November.
    18. Robert J. W. Tijssen & Martijn S. Visser & Thed N. van Leeuwen, 2002. "Benchmarking international scientific excellence: Are highly cited research papers an appropriate frame of reference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 54(3), pages 381-397, July.
    19. Michelle L. Dion & Sara McLaughlin Mitchell & Jane L. Sumner, 2020. "Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 1-28, October.
    20. Zhang, Lin & Sivertsen, Gunnar & Du, Huiying & HUANG, Ying & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2021. "Gender differences in the aims and impacts of research," SocArXiv 9n347, Center for Open Science.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2330-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.