Authors Quoting Themselves Extensively in the References

Vivienne Miller
Diabetes Management Journal
______________________________
If not redundant and appropriate I would let them go through.

I have seen more!

Sam Sussman
______________________________
This is an interesting question, and we also like to know the policy followed by others. In our journal, however, we do not have any restriction on the number of times in citing one’s own publications in one’s latest paper.

M. Shamsul Islam Khan
Head, Publications and Managing Editor, JHPN
______________________________
If the references are all relevant, and if the author has included all the other relevant papers by other authors, then that's fine. It's only a problem if the author is selectively referencing his or her own papers, and ignoring all the others.

Bob Bury
Editor, Clinical Radiology
______________________________
I do completely agree with Bob Bury.

Saleh Zahedi
Editor in Chief, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

______________________________
For what it’s worth, I agree with Bob Bury et al as well.

I would note, though, that sometimes a clue to duplicate/salami publication can be found in such references. Is the ms in hand really something new, or just a rehashing/different slice of the authors’ previously published work (as pointed to in references 1-5!)?  It may very well be new—but it doesn’t hurt to look...

Lisa Dittrich
Director of Publications, ASBMR Publications
______________________________
The flip side is when an author doesn't cite his or her recent related work. When you take into account the incentive that exists to boost their own citation count, it is a 'red flag' if the reference is missing.

It makes sense that authors cite themselves because they often do a whole series of work in the same area. If they're experts in the field, you'd expect to see references to their own work! The problem comes when they cite themselves to the exclusion of others, or cite their own work that is only very tangentially connected to the current study, or cite their own work when it is by no means the first or best example to cite.

Matt Hodgkinson
______________________________
Many authors are working on a single subject for years and for me it’s not unusual that an author references his/her previous work. And, I also agree that as long as relevant references are used, we should let it be done.

Farrokh Habibzadeh
______________________________
I think one of the most important factors in evaluating a paper is the number of references released by the writers—especially the corresponding author. This, of course witnesses the proficiency of the writer in the subject, so logically we must not announce any restriction in this regard.

MB Rokni
______________________________
Thanks to everyone for their replies, it has been very interesting to discuss this with you all. I guess my point is that there must be some concern raised at some stage when the majority of references cited are contributed by the author that has also written the paper the references are mentioned in! There are very few experts publishing data compared with the number of authors, and obviously no one would be critical if a national expert cited much of his/her own research.

However, what about the non-experts? Even if the references are relevant, should there still be no limit at all to citing only your own stuff?! Here etiquette meets decency and common sense, in my opinion.

Vivienne Miller
______________________________
It would be interesting to know how a non-expert can write an article about a specific topic while he/she is able to use some other references of his/her own works that are relevant to that topic.

I think if an author can write about a topic while he/she has some relevant references from his/her previous articles he/she is not a non-expert even if he/she does not have the related academic degree.

Re: the main question about the number of references, I think the key point is the "balance and fairness". If an author wants to argue a topic in his/her Discussion and refer the audience to his/her previous relevant articles to prove that argument, he/she must use some other relevant references for the "counter argument". If an author considers this balance, I agree that he/she can use his/her previous articles as references.

Behrooz Astaneh
Deputy Editor, Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences
______________________________
Vivienne: certainly there must be balance. If this is not some obscure topic that only this particular author has done extensive research in, there MUST be other sources. I would certainly question it.

At my previous journal, we would sometimes point out relevant papers we had published—NOT in an attempt to raise impact factor, but simply because we knew of important research the author was clearly unfamiliar with. At the very least, ask the author to explain the situation. Clearly your instincts tell you something is fishy here, and you have a right to inquire.

Lisa Dittrich
Director of Publications, ASBMR Publications