| Title |
Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientometrics, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rodrigo Costas, Thed N. van Leeuwen, María Bordons |
| Abstract |
This paper focuses on the study of self-citations at the meso and micro (individual) levels, on the basis of an analysis of the production (1994-2004) of individual researchers working at the Spanish CSIC in the areas of Biology and Biomedicine and Material Sciences. Two different types of self-citations are described: author self-citations (citations received from the author him/herself) and co-author self-citations (citations received from the researchers' co-authors but without his/her participation). Self-citations do not play a decisive role in the high citation scores of documents either at the individual or at the meso level, which are mainly due to external citations. At micro-level, the percentage of self-citations does not change by professional rank or age, but differences in the relative weight of author and co-author self-citations have been found. The percentage of co-author self-citations tends to decrease with age and professional rank while the percentage of author self-citations shows the opposite trend. Suppressing author self-citations from citation counts to prevent overblown self-citation practices may result in a higher reduction of citation numbers of old scientists and, particularly, of those in the highest categories. Author and co-author self-citations provide valuable information on the scientific communication process, but external citations are the most relevant for evaluative purposes. As a final recommendation, studies considering self-citations at the individual level should make clear whether author or total self-citations are used as these can affect researchers differently. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 3% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Slovenia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Croatia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 152 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 11% |
| Librarian | 17 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 10% |
| Other | 48 | 29% |
| Unknown | 24 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 46 | 28% |
| Computer Science | 28 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 35 | 21% |
| Unknown | 32 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 April 2014.
All research outputs
#3,214,701
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from Scientometrics
#667
of 2,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,920
of 94,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientometrics
#5
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.