Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Study on Journal Self-Citations and Intra-Citing within the Subject Category of Multidisciplinary Sciences

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

For academic research outcomes, there is an increasing emphasis on the bibliometric scorings like the journal impact factor and citations when the assessment of the scientific merits of research or researchers is required. Currently, no known study has been conducted to explore the bibliographical trends of the subject category of multidisciplinary sciences as indexed by the annual Journal Citation Reports of the Thomson Scientific. The effect of journal self-citations and intra-citing within a discipline to the bibliometric data computation can be confounding. In this study, six journals were selected from the multidisciplinary sciences subject category where the trend of self-citations and intra-citing were analysed. These journals were chosen as they published more than 450 citable articles in the year 2007 and had available bibliometric data for a 10-year period. The results showed that self-citations rose as much as +23.98% while intra-citing declined up to −5.80% over the observed period. The retrospective impacts and influences of these observations were also discussed in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gami, A. S., Montori, V. M., Wilczynski, N. L., & Haynes, R. B. (2004). Author self-citation in the diabetes literature. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1925–1927. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1031879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fassoulaki, A., Paraskeva, A., Papilas, K., & Karabinis, G. (2000). Self-citations in six anaesthesia journals and their significance in determining the impact factor. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 84, 266–269.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hyland, K. (2003). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 251–259. doi:10.1002/asi.10204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nieminen, P., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., & Schumacher, M. (2006). The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 42. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith, R. (1997). Journal accused of manipulating impact factor. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 314, 461.

    Google Scholar 

  6. DeMaria, A. N. (2003). A report card for journals. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 42, 952–953. doi:10.1016/S0735-1097(03)01001-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bloch, S., & Walter, G. (2001). The Impact Factor: Time for change. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 563–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. Journal of the American Medical Association, 295, 90–93. doi:10.1001/jama.295.1.90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Adam, D. (2002). The counting house. Nature, 415, 726–729.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Golubic, R., Rudes, M., Kovacic, N., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2008). Calculating impact factor: How bibliographical classification of journal items affects the impact factor of large and small journals. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14, 41–49. doi:10.1007/s11948-007-9044-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hirsch, J. E. (2007). Does the H index have predictive power? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19193–19198. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707962104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kinney, A. L. (2007). National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 17943–17947. doi:10.1073/pnas.0704416104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Seglen, P. (1997). Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 314, 498–502.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 164–172. doi:10.1016/j.joi.2008.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bollen, J., Rodriguez, M. A., & Van de Sompel, H. (2006). Journal status. Scientometrics, 69, 669–687. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0176-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Glanzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2003). A new classification scheme of science fields and subfields designed for scientometric evaluation purposes. Scientometrics, 56, 357–367. doi:10.1023/A:1022378804087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Institute for Scientific Information. (2009). Journal Citation Reports. Philadelphia, PA: Institute for Scientific Information, Thomson Scientific.

  18. Seglen, P. O. (1994). Causal relationship between article citedness and journal impact. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45, 1–11. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199401)45:1<1::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-Y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 294, 218–228. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Nakayama, T., Fukui, T., Fukuhara, S., Tsutani, K., & Yamazaki, S. (2003). Comparison between impact factors and citations in evidence-based practice guidelines. Journal of the American Medical Association, 290, 755–756. doi:10.1001/jama.290.6.755-b.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Callaham, M., Wears, R. L., & Weber, E. (2002). Journal prestige, publication bias, and other characteristics associated with citation of published studies in peer-reviewed journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2847–2850. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Brown, H. (2007). How impact factors changed medical publishing – and science. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 334, 561–564. doi:10.1136/bmj.39142.454086.AD.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schutte, H. K., & Svec, J. G. (2007). Reaction of Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica on the current trend of impact factor measures. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 59, 281–285. doi:10.1159/000108334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fava, G. A., Guidi, J., & Sonino, N. (2004). How citation analysis can monitor the progress of research in clinical medicine. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 73, 331–333. doi:10.1159/000080384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

All the bibliographical data used in this study were obtained from the Journal Citation Report of the Thomson Scientific.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Research, Singapore General Hospital, 31 Third Hospital Avenue, Bowyer Block A Level 3, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Jong Yong Abdiel Foo

Authors
  1. Jong Yong Abdiel Foo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jong Yong Abdiel Foo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foo, J.Y.A. A Study on Journal Self-Citations and Intra-Citing within the Subject Category of Multidisciplinary Sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 15, 491–501 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9118-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9118-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation