Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Self-citation policies in anaesthesiology journals

2020; Elsevier BV; Volume: 126; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.bja.2020.10.002

1471-6771

Filippo Sanfilippo, Stefano Tigano, Alberto Morgana, Paolo Murabitol, Marinella Astuto,

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Editor—Compulsory self-citation and artificial self-promotion represent poor publishing practice.1Ioannidis J.P.A. Baas J. Klavans R. Boyack K.W. A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field.PLoS Biol. 2019; 17e3000384Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar,2Van Noorden R. Singh Chawla D. Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database.Nature. 2019; 572: 578-579Crossref PubMed Scopus (34) Google Scholar Self-citations may be divided in author and journal self-citations (A-SC and J-SC, respectively). Although these are not related to each other, both should be considered during the review process. The most common approach to define A-SC is counting as self-citation each time the article is cited by one of its co-authors. It has been estimated that each A-SC generates 3.65 additional citations over 10 yr.3Fowler J. Aksnes D. Does self-citation pay?.Scientometrics. 2007; 72: 427-437Crossref Scopus (170) Google Scholar Although some self-citations are certainly inevitable, inappropriate A-SC and ‘citation farms’ (clusters of authors citing themselves) create spurious citation metrics. As these metrics are taken into account for examinations, grants etc., this practice cannot be considered academically honest. Excessive J-SC is another practice (unrelated to A-SC) resulting from inappropriate editorial requests to quote articles previously published in their journal in order to increase their impact factor (IF).4Tighe P. Rice K.J. Gravenstein N. Rice M.J. Artifactual increase in journal self-citation.Anesth Analg. 2011; 113: 378-382Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar The J-SC is reported as:where the numerator represents the delta IF (contribution of self-citations to IF).JSC rate=IF −IF without self citationsIF Among proposed solutions to restrict self-citation practice is implementation of related policies. We conducted an observational investigation to describe the presence of policies for limiting A-SC and overall J-SC among anaesthesiology journals. On July 15, 2020, we evaluated the presence of policies for discouraging A-SC among anaesthesiology journals with an IF according to InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 (Clarivate Analytics®; https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRJournalHomeAction.action).5Trusted insights and analytics – Clarivate.https://jcr.clarivate.com/JCRJournalHomeAction.actionDate accessed: July 15, 2020Google Scholar When a policy was reported, we evaluated if a self-citation cut-off was proposed. Simultaneously we gathered from InCites the values of IFs (with or without self-citations) and calculated J-SC rate accordingly. Continuous variables are presented as median (25th–75th percentile), and categorical variables as number and percentage. The Mann–Whitney U-test for unrelated samples was performed separating journals according to the presence of policies regarding self-citations. Tests were two-sided; P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. We found 32 anaesthesiology journals with journal IF. Table 1 describes J-SC rates and the presence of policies for limiting A-SC. Seven journals (22%) discouraged ‘excessive and inappropriate’ self-citations, but only one (Pain Physicians) reported a cut-off for self-referencing.Table 1Anaesthesiology journals according to their rank in Journal Citation Reports 2019. For each journal we provide: journal rank and full title, impact factor (IF), and IF without self-citation (SC), Journal Self-Citation Rate (2019), publisher name, and presence and description of policies on limiting SC (and any cut-off). Each journal name contains a hyperlink to its instruction to authors/submission guidelines.Journal rank and full titleIFIF without SCJ-SC rate 2019 (%)PublisherPolicy (cut-off)Policy description1Anesthesiology7.0676.4618.6Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA✓Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged2Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine7.0155.85216.6WB Saunders Co.-Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA–3British Journal of Anaesthesia6.8805.92513.9Oxford University Press, Oxford, England✓Please avoid inappropriate and/or excessive self-citations, Appropriate self-citations are welcome4Journal of Clinical Anesthesia6.0395.11815.3Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, USA–5Anaesthesia5.7394.25825.8Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA✓Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged6Pain5.4834.92310.2Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands–7European Journal of Anaesthesiology4.5003.99411.2Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA–8Anesthesia and Analgesia4.3053.82711.1Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA–9Canadian Journal of Anesthesia3.7793.0519.3Springer, New York, NY, USA–10European Journal of Pain3.4923.2028.3Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, England–11Pain Physician3.2512.61119.7Am Soc Interventional Pain Physicians, Paducah, KY, USA✓ (30%)References from a single journal or a single author must be limited to 30% of total references which includes Pain Physician and primary author references. Journal Checklist: ‘Make sure 30% or fewer references from same journal or author’12Journal of Neurosurgical Anaesthesiology2.9282.1227.6Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA–13Clinical Journal of Pain2.8932.7634.5Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA–14Perioperative Medicine2.7402.682.2BMC, London, England–15Anaesthesia Critical Care & pain Medicine2.7072.32514.1Elsevier France-Editions Scientifique Medicals Elsevier, Issy-les-Moulineaux, France–16Pain Medicine2.5132.2610.1Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA–17Minerva Anestesiologica2.4981.61435.4Edizioni Minerva Medica, Turin, Italy–18Pediatric Anesthesia2.3111.98314.2Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA–19Current Opinion in Anesthesiology2.2762.193.8Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, USA–20Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia2.2581.41837.2WB Saunders Co.-Elsevier Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA–20Pain Practice2.2582.1883.1Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, USA–22Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing2.1081.5725.5Springer Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany✓Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged23Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2.0501.7912.7Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, USA–24International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia1.8951.57916.7Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, England–25BMC Anesthesiology1.6951.5846.5Springer Nature✓Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged26Journal of Anesthesia1.6281.4719.6Springer Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan✓Excessive and inappropriate self-citation or coordinated efforts among several authors to collectively self-cite is strongly discouraged27Anaesthesia and Intensive Care1.5391.35711.8Australian Soc Anaesthetists, Australia–28Anaesthesist1.0250.75426.4Springer Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany–29Schmerz0.9640.71825.5Springer Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany–30Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia0.8670.8057.2Elsevier Science Inc., New York, NY, USA–31Anesthesiologie & Intensivmedizin0.8400.58530.4Aktiv Druck & Verlag GmbH, Ebelsbach, Germany–32Anestesiologia Intensivmedizin Notfallmedizin Schmerztherapie0.5310.5045.1Georg Thieme Verlag KG, Stuttgart, Germany– Open table in a new tab J-SC rate was variable (1.4–37.2%), with a median 8.4% (2.2–16.7%). The J-SC rate was not different between journals with or without policies on self-citations: 8.6% (3.2–19.7%) vs 8.3% (2.2–16.6%), respectively (P=0.86). Journals with policies on self-citations had similar IF (3.3% [1.7–6.9%]) as compared with journals without (2.5% [1.7–3.6%]; P=0.32]. Post-hoc analysis conducted with an arbitrary separation between journals with broader interest (n=27) vs highly specific ones (n=5, rank 12-18-20-22-24 in Table 1) showed a trend towards higher J-SC rate in the specific journals (7.2% [2.2–12.2%] vs 25.5% [16.7–27.6%; P=0.06), whereas there was no differences in journal IF (P=0.48). This represents the first investigation on the presence of policies for limiting A-SC in anaesthesiology journals, and we are not aware of similar studies in other disciplines. Appropriateness of A-SC has been classified as optional, semi-mandatory, or mandatory,6Hemmat Esfe M. Wongwises S. Asadi A. Karimipour A. Akbari M. Mandatory and self-citation; types, reasons, their benefits and disadvantages.Sci Eng Ethics. 2015; 21: 1581-1585Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar but it remains challenging to make this approach practical. We found a sub-optimal presence of policies regarding self-citation in anaesthesiology journals. Journals prevalently ‘discouraged’ or asked to ‘avoid’ self-citations; only one reported a cut-off (pooling together A-SC and J-SC). To add more complexity, it is reasonable that self-citation cut-offs differ between original studies and correspondence, meaning that one cut-off does not fit all manuscript types. Moreover, no journal claims to undertake any action against inappropriate A-SC. We found similar J-SC rates and IF regardless the presence of policies against self-citations. However, the small sample size makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions. The second (separate) focus of our study was J-SC rate, which was highly variable and should be interpreted with caution. For instance, journals with highly specific targets (i.e. neuro/cardiac/paediatric anaesthesia) may have partly/entirely justified higher J-SC rates, with our post-hoc analysis showed a trend in this regard. For example highly specialised studies cite previous investigations that have a high chance of being published in the same journal. Landoni and colleagues7Landoni G. Pieri M. Nicolotti D. et al.Self-citation in anaesthesia and critical care journals: introducing a flat tax.Br J Anaesth. 2010; 105: 386-387Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar described yearly changes in self-citation attitude by anaesthesiology and critical care journals for the period 1999–2009, and found that it considerably increased from 2006 (11.5%) to 2008 (44.4%). Tighe and colleagues4Tighe P. Rice K.J. Gravenstein N. Rice M.J. Artifactual increase in journal self-citation.Anesth Analg. 2011; 113: 378-382Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar evaluated the practice of J-SC in eight anaesthesiology journals, and found it positively correlated to increased IF. Our study provides a basis for discussion between editors and publishers on the importance of promoting self-citation policies among anaesthesiology journals, and in other disciplines. As deliberate A-SC inflates author metrics with possible impact on academic promotion, evaluation, and grant applications, it is paramount to discourage this practice. A recent study reported a 9.2% median (inter-quartile range, 4.8–14.7%) for A-SC among the top 100 000 authors (in 2017).1Ioannidis J.P.A. Baas J. Klavans R. Boyack K.W. A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field.PLoS Biol. 2019; 17e3000384Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar In this context, one should consider that A-SC rate may be higher in leading scientists as they conduct original studies and are often asked to provide viewpoints and editorials. On the contrary, it is more difficult for authors producing few studies, letters, or both and replies to promote themselves. These authors may be more prone to inappropriate A-SC, which warrants further investigation. Of note, A-SC attitude has received greater scrutiny in countries where specific metrics have been included for the application to academic positions. A recent study8Seeber M. Cattaneo M. Meoli M. Malighetti P. Self-citations as strategic response to the use of metrics for career decisions.Res Policy. 2019; 48: 478-491Crossref Scopus (66) Google Scholar showed a sharp increase in the amount of A-SC in Italy since 2010 when it became mandatory for achievement of academic habilitation in order to apply for academic positions. Although the data on self-citation policies, journal IF, and J-SC rates are easily obtained, our investigation oversimplifies a complex issue. Indeed, it remains difficult to address both the appropriateness of A-SC, and the number of inappropriate editorial requests to add specific citations during the review process. We restricted our study to journals with IF; the lack of policies regarding self-citations may be greater in ‘predatory journals’.9Cortegiani A. Longhini F. Sanfilippo F. Raineri S.M. Gregoretti C. Giarratano A. Predatory open-access publishing in anesthesiology.Anesth Analg. 2019; 128: 182-187Crossref PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar,10Cortegiani A. Sanfilippo F. Tramarin J. Giarratano Predatory open-access publishing in critical care medicine.J Crit Care. 2019; 50: 247-249Crossref PubMed Scopus (26) Google Scholar In conclusion, we found a limited number of anaesthesiology journals reporting policies for limiting A-SC. The J-SC rates and IF were not different between anaesthesiology journals with or without policies. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.