↓ Skip to main content

A generalized view of self-citation: Direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Psychosomatic Research, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
33 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A generalized view of self-citation: Direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation
Published in
Journal of Psychosomatic Research, November 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

John P A Ioannidis

Abstract

The phenomenon of self-citation can present in many different forms, including direct, co-author, collaborative, and coercive induced self-citation. It can also pertain to the citation of single scientists, groups of scientists, journals, and institutions. This article presents some case studies of extreme self-citation practices. It also discusses the implications of different types of self-citation. Self-citation is not necessarily inappropriate by default. In fact, usually it is fully appropriate but often it is even necessary. Conversely, inappropriate self-citation practices may be highly misleading and may distort the scientific literature. Coercive induced self-citation is the most difficult to discover. Coercive Induced self-citation may happen directly from reviewers of articles, but also indirectly from reviewers of grants, scientific advisors who steer a research agenda, and leaders of funding agencies who may espouse spending disproportionately large funds in research domains that perpetuate their own self-legacy. Inappropriate self-citation can be only a surrogate marker of what might be much greater distortions of the scientific corpus towards conformity to specific opinions and biases. Inappropriate self-citations eventually affect also impact metrics. Different impact metrics vary in the extent to which they can be gamed through self-citation practices. Citation indices that are more gaming-proof are available and should be more widely used. We need more empirical studies to dissect the impact of different types of inappropriate self-citation and to examine the effectiveness of interventions to limit them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Finland 2 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Unknown 106 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 34 30%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 16 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Engineering 7 6%
Other 31 28%
Unknown 27 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,782,229
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#258
of 3,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,557
of 368,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psychosomatic Research
#4
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,069 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 368,585 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.