IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v22y2020i1d10.1007_s10796-018-9889-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is Self-Citation Biased? An Investigation via the Lens of Citation Polarity, Density, and Location

Author

Listed:
  • Lina Zhou

    (The University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

  • Uchechukwuka Amadi

    (Northcentral University)

  • Dongsong Zhang

    (The University of North Carolina at Charlotte)

Abstract

Traditional citation analysis methods have been criticized because their theoretical base of statistical counts does not reflect the motive or judgment of citing authors. In particular, self-citations may give undue credits to a cited article or mislead scientific development. This research aims to answer the question of whether self-citation is biased by probing into the motives and context of citations. It takes an integrated and fine-grained view of self-citations by examining them via multiple lenses — polarity, density, and location of citations. In addition, it explores potential moderating effects of citation level and associations among location contexts of citations to the same references for the first time. We analyzed academic publications across different topics and disciplines using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The results provide evidence that self-citations are free of bias in terms of citation density and polarity uncertainty, but they can be biased with respect to positivity and negativity of citations. Furthermore, this study reveals impacts of self-citing behavior on some citation patterns involving citation density, location concentration, and associations. The examination of self-citing behavior from those new perspectives shed new lights on the nature and function of self-citing behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Lina Zhou & Uchechukwuka Amadi & Dongsong Zhang, 2020. "Is Self-Citation Biased? An Investigation via the Lens of Citation Polarity, Density, and Location," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 77-90, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:22:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-018-9889-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-018-9889-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-018-9889-9
    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/s10796-018-9889-9?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. Terrence A. Brooks, 1986. "Evidence of complex citer motivations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 37(1), pages 34-36, January.
    2. J. E. Hirsch, 2010. "An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output that takes into account the effect of multiple coauthorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 741-754, December.
    3. Emilio Ferrara & Alfonso E. Romero, 2013. "Scientific impact evaluation and the effect of self-citations: Mitigating the bias by discounting the h-index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(11), pages 2332-2339, November.
    4. Terrence A. Brooks, 1985. "Private acts and public objects: An investigation of citer motivations," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 36(4), pages 223-229, July.
    5. Kawaljeet Kaur Kapoor & Kuttimani Tamilmani & Nripendra P. Rana & Pushp Patil & Yogesh K. Dwivedi & Sridhar Nerur, 2018. "Advances in Social Media Research: Past, Present and Future," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 531-558, June.
    6. Guo Zhang & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević, 2013. "Citation content analysis (CCA): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1490-1503, July.
    7. Chun-Ting Zhang, 2013. "The h’-Index, Effectively Improving the h-Index Based on the Citation Distribution," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(4), pages 1-8, April.
    8. James H. Fowler & Dag W. Aksnes, 2007. "Does self-citation pay?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 72(3), pages 427-437, September.
    9. V. Cano, 1989. "Citation behavior: Classification, utility, and location," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 40(4), pages 284-290, July.
    10. Linda Butler & Martijn S. Visser, 2006. "Extending citation analysis to non-source items," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(2), pages 327-343, February.
    11. Anne‐Wil Harzing & Ron van der Wal, 2009. "A Google Scholar h‐index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 60(1), pages 41-46, January.
    12. Siniša Maričić & Jagoda Spaventi & Leo Pavičić & Greta Pifat‐Mrzljak, 1998. "Citation context versus the frequency counts of citation histories," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 49(6), pages 530-540.
    13. Ludo Waltman & Nees Jan van Eck, 2012. "The inconsistency of the h-index," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(2), pages 406-415, February.
    14. Guo Zhang & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević, 2013. "Citation content analysis (CCA): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(7), pages 1490-1503, July.
    15. Donald O. Case & Georgeann M. Higgins, 2000. "How can we investigate citation behavior? A study of reasons for citing literature in communication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(7), pages 635-645.
    16. Fooladi, Masood & Salehi, Hadi & Md Yunus, Melor & Farhadi, Maryam & Aghaei Chadegani, Arezoo & Farhadi, Hadi & Ale Ebrahim, Nader, 2013. "Does Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor?," MPRA Paper 46899, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Mar 2013.
    17. Wolfgang Glänzel & Koenraad Debackere & Bart Thijs & András Schubert, 2006. "A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 67(2), pages 263-277, May.
    18. Ken Hyland, 2003. "Self‐citation and self‐reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(3), pages 251-259, February.
    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. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin & Chunbo Zhang, 2023. "Does citation polarity help evaluate the quality of academic papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(7), pages 4065-4087, July.
    2. Linhong Xu & Kun Ding & Yuan Lin, 2022. "Do negative citations reduce the impact of cited papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 1161-1186, February.
    3. Yangping Zhou, 2021. "Self-citation and citation of top journal publishers and their interpretation in the journal-discipline context," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 6013-6040, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Core elements in the process of citing publications: Conceptual overview of the literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 203-216.
    3. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    4. Hamid R. Jamali & Majid Nabavi & Saeid Asadi, 2018. "How video articles are cited, the case of JoVE: Journal of Visualized Experiments," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1821-1839, December.
    5. Frederique Bordignon, 2022. "Critical citations in knowledge construction and citation analysis: from paradox to definition," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 959-972, February.
    6. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2020. "Deep and narrow impact: introducing location filtered citation counting," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 503-517, January.
    7. Dangzhi Zhao & Andreas Strotmann, 2020. "Telescopic and panoramic views of library and information science research 2011–2018: a comparison of four weighting schemes for author co-citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 255-270, July.
    8. Chao Lu & Ying Ding & Chengzhi Zhang, 2017. "Understanding the impact change of a highly cited article: a content-based citation analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(2), pages 927-945, August.
    9. Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Juan Xie & Ying Cheng, 2021. "The classification of citing motivations: a meta-synthesis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3243-3264, April.
    10. Ibrahim Shehatta & Abdullah M. Al-Rubaish, 2019. "Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 775-791, August.
    11. Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx, 2014. "How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(1), pages 487-509, January.
    12. Tanzila Ahmed & Ben Johnson & Charles Oppenheim & Catherine Peck, 2004. "Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited. Part II., The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 61(2), pages 147-156, October.
    13. Yang, Jinqing & Liu, Zhifeng, 2022. "The effect of citation behaviour on knowledge diffusion and intellectual structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    14. Bikun Chen & Dannan Deng & Zhouyan Zhong & Chengzhi Zhang, 2020. "Exploring linguistic characteristics of highly browsed and downloaded academic articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1769-1790, March.
    15. 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.
    16. Wang, Shiyun & Mao, Jin & Lu, Kun & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2021. "Understanding interdisciplinary knowledge integration through citance analysis: A case study on eHealth," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Matthias Sebastian Rüdiger & David Antons & Torsten-Oliver Salge, 2021. "The explanatory power of citations: a new approach to unpacking impact in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(12), pages 9779-9809, December.
    18. Nigel Harwood, 2008. "Publication outlets and their effect on academic writers’ citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 77(2), pages 253-265, November.
    19. Luca Cagliero & Paolo Garza & Mohammad Reza Kavoosifar & Elena Baralis, 2018. "Discovering cross-topic collaborations among researchers by exploiting weighted association rules," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1273-1301, August.
    20. Victoria Bakare & Grant Lewison, 2017. "Country over-citation ratios," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1199-1207, November.

    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:infosf:v:22:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1007_s10796-018-9889-9. 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.