Key Takeaways
- Self-citation patterns vary substantially across researchers and academic research fields.
- Citation-based career incentives were associated with increased self-citation among researchers.
- Self-citations helped some researchers meet relevant citation-related habilitation thresholds in past.
- Focused research programs can naturally generate frequent self-citations across multiple publications.
A citation can look like a simple measure of academic influence, but the number alone does not reveal why that citation exists. When researchers cite their own previous work, it may reflect a genuine continuation of a research program. But when citation counts also influence academic advancement, an important tension emerges: are the incentives used to evaluate researchers still aligned with the research influence those metrics are supposed to measure? That question becomes especially relevant when self-citation patterns change alongside career incentives.
This is where self-citation in academic careers becomes more than a question about citation practices. It becomes a question of whether evaluation systems are aligned with the outcomes they aim to reward. Research shows that self-citation varies across fields and researchers, while evidence from the Italian higher education system links citation-based evaluation with changes in self-citation behavior. Together, these findings suggest that citation counts need context, particularly when they are used to assess academic progression.
What are self-citations, and when are they legitimate?
A self-citation occurs when researchers cite their own previous publications in a new paper. Self-citation is common because researchers often develop new studies from their earlier methods, findings, datasets, or theories. For example, a researcher who develops a particular method may publish several studies that use or refine it. Citing earlier papers allows the new study to show how it relates to that previous research.
Research by Martin Szomszor, David Pendlebury, and Jonathan Adams examined self-citation patterns among 3,517 Highly Cited Researchers across 21 research fields. The study analyzed publications and citations from 2008 to 2018. The researchers found that self-citation patterns vary between fields and researchers. Because of this variation, the study did not propose one universal percentage for excessive self-citation.
A high level of self-citation does not, by itself, show inappropriate behavior. Researchers with focused research programs may cite their previous work frequently because later studies build on earlier publications. The study also distinguishes between self-referencing and self-citing. Self-referencing concerns an author’s previous work appearing in a new publication’s references. Self-citing concerns citations received by an author’s earlier publications. The two measures are related but are not identical.
Can citation metrics influence academic careers?
Citation metrics become more consequential when universities use publication and citation measures in career decisions. Marco Seeber, Mattia Cattaneo, Michele Meoli, and Paolo Malighetti studied this issue in the Italian higher education system. Their research examined 886 scientists from four disciplinary sectors and 20,565 publications between 2002 and 2014. The Italian academic habilitation system connected publication and citation performance with progression toward academic positions. The researchers examined whether this evaluation system was associated with changes in self-citation behavior.
The study found a significant increase in self-citations among researchers who could benefit most from citation-based career decisions. The increase was particularly evident among assistant professors, associate professors, and relatively less-cited researchers. The pattern was also especially noticeable in the social science fields included in the study.
The researchers reported that self-citations could help some scientists meet citation-related habilitation thresholds. In Economic and Managerial Engineering, self-citations allowed 18% more assistant professors and 9% more associate professors to meet the relevant threshold in 2014, according to the study.
These findings show an association between citation-based career incentives and changes in self-citation behavior. They do not establish that every researcher who increased self-citations did so deliberately to influence a career metric. The authors identified this limitation in their study. A rapid increase in self-citation could have other explanations, although the timing of the increase was used as evidence consistent with a strategic response.
What do these studies tell us about research evaluation?
The two studies examine different parts of the relationship between self-citation and research evaluation. Szomszor and colleagues showed that self-citation varies across research fields and that unusually high patterns need to be considered in context. A fixed threshold cannot reliably distinguish legitimate self-citation from excessive self-citation across all disciplines.
Seeber and colleagues found that citation-based career incentives were associated with changes in researchers’ self-citation behavior. Their study examined one national higher education system, so the findings cannot automatically be applied to every country or academic discipline.
The evidence does not support avoiding self-citation altogether. Citing relevant previous work is a normal part of academic research. At the same time, citation counts can become harder to interpret when a substantial part of the measure comes from citations generated within a researcher’s own publication record.
For universities, this distinction matters when citation metrics are used for promotion or other career decisions. For researchers, the relevant question is not simply whether self-citation occurs, but how self-citation fits within the researcher’s work, research visibility, and the evaluation system being used. Self-citation is not automatically a problem. However, unusually high self-citation can affect how citation-based measures of research influence are interpreted.
FAQs on Self-Citation in Academic Careers
Q: What are self-citations in academic research?
A: A self-citation occurs when researchers cite their own previous publications in a new paper. Self-citation is a normal part of academic research when earlier work is directly relevant to the new study. Researchers may cite previous methods, findings, datasets, or theories to show how new research builds on existing work.
Q: How do self-citations affect academic careers?
A: Self-citations can affect academic careers when universities use citation counts as part of promotion or research evaluation. Research by Seeber and colleagues found that citation-based career incentives in the Italian higher education system were associated with increased self-citation among researchers who could benefit most from those metrics. The study does not show that every increase was deliberate.
Q: How much self-citation is considered too much?
A: There is no single self-citation percentage that can be applied to every researcher or discipline. Szomszor, Pendlebury, and Adams found that self-citation patterns vary across 21 research fields and argued for evaluating unusually high patterns in context. A high percentage alone does not establish inappropriate citation behavior.
Q: Can self-citation help with academic promotion?
A: Self-citations can contribute to citation totals when citation counts are used in academic evaluation. Seeber and colleagues found that self-citations helped some scientists meet citation-related habilitation thresholds in the Italian system they studied. However, this finding applies to that specific evaluation system and does not establish that self-citation improves promotion outcomes in every academic system.
Q: Is self-citation bad for researchers?
A: Self-citation is not inherently bad for researchers. Citing relevant previous research is part of normal scholarly practice, especially when a research program develops over several publications. The concern is whether unusually high self-citation makes citation metrics less informative about independent research influence.
Q: Why do researchers cite their own papers?
A: Researchers may cite their own papers because new studies often build directly on previous research. Earlier publications can contain methods, findings, datasets, or theoretical work that is relevant to the new study. Therefore, the presence of self-citations does not by itself indicate an attempt to manipulate citation counts.
Q: How is self-citation different from independent citation?
A: A self-citation comes from the researchers’ own publication record, while an independent citation comes from researchers outside that publication record. This distinction matters because citation counts are sometimes used as indicators of research influence. A high overall citation count does not provide the same information about external recognition if a substantial proportion comes from self-citations.
Q: Can citation metrics encourage researchers to self-cite more?
A: Evidence from the Italian higher education system suggests that citation-based career incentives can be associated with increased self-citation. Seeber and colleagues found stronger increases among assistant professors, associate professors, and relatively less-cited researchers who could benefit from citation-based evaluation. The study was conducted in one national system, so the finding cannot automatically be generalized to all researchers.
Q: Should universities exclude self-citations when evaluating researchers?
A: The available research does not support a universal rule to exclude all self-citations from academic evaluation. Legitimate self-citation can reflect a coherent research program, while unusually high self-citation can make citation-based measures more difficult to interpret. Szomszor and colleagues found enough variation between fields to make a single universal cutoff unsuitable.
Disclaimer:
Some aspects of the webpage preparation workflow may be informed or enhanced through the use of artificial intelligence technologies. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy and clarity, readers are encouraged to consult primary sources for verification. External links are provided for convenience, and Honores does not endorse, control, or assume responsibility for their content or for any outcomes resulting from their use. The author declares no conflicts of interest in relation to the external links included. Neither the author nor the website has received any financial support, sponsorship, or external funding. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. Please consult a qualified physician before making health decisions. Images are for representational purposes only. Photo by Mike van Schoonderwalt.
References
- Szomszor M, Pendlebury DA, Adams J. How much is too much? The difference between research influence and self-citation excess. Scientometrics. 2020 May;123(2):1119-47. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5.
- Seeber M, Cattaneo M, Meoli M, Malighetti P. Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions. Research Policy. 2019 Mar 1;48(2):478-91. Doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.004.
- Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Grilli L. The effects of citation-based research evaluation schemes on self-citation behavior. Journal of Informetrics. 2021 Nov 1;15(4):101204. Doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101204.
- COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Council. COPE Discussion Document: Citation Manipulation. July 2019. Doi: 10.24318/cope.2019.3.1. Available from: https://publicationethics.org/guidance/discussion-document/citation-manipulation
