Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499899›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2021

Self-citation policies and journal self-citation rate among Critical Care Medicine journals.

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

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Self-referencing rates in biological disciplines.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Author Self-Citation in the Turkish Otorhinolaryngology Literature.Turkish archives of otorhinolaryngology · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Filippo SanfilippoDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, A.O.U., "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele" University Hospital, via S. Sofia 78, 95100, Catania, Italy. filipposanfi@yahoo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5144-0776
Stefano Tigano.School of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital "G. Rodolico", University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Alberto MorganaSchool of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, "Magna Graecia" University, Catanzaro, Italy.
Paolo MurabitoDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, A.O.U., "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele" University Hospital, via S. Sofia 78, 95100, Catania, Italy.
Marinella AstutoDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, A.O.U., "Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele" University Hospital, via S. Sofia 78, 95100, Catania, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInappropriate authors' self-citation (A-SC) is a growing mal-practice possibly boosted by the raising importance given to author's metrics. Similarly, also excessive journals' self-citation (J-SC) practice may factitiously influence journal's metrics (impact factor, IF). Evaluating the appropriateness of each self-citation remains challenging. MAIN BODY: We evaluated the presence of policies discouraging A-SC in Critical Care Medicine (CCM) journals with IF. We also calculated the J-SC rate of these journals. In order to evaluate if J-SC rates are influenced by the focus of interest of CCM journals, we separated them in three sub-categories ("multidisciplinary", "broad" or "topic-specific" CCM journals). We analyzed 35 CCM journals and only 5 (14.3%) discouraged excessive and inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was higher in CCM journals with A-SC policies [4.1 (3-12)] as compared to those without [2.5 (2-3.5); p = 0.02]. The J-SC rate was highly variable (0-35.4%), and not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p = 0.32). However, J-SC rate was different according to the focus of interest (p = 0.01): in particular, it was higher in "topic-specific" CCM journals [15.3 (8.8-23.3%)], followed by "broad" CCM [11.8 (4.8-17.9%)] and "multidisciplinary" journals [6.1 (3.6-9.1%)].

conclusionsA limited number of CCM journals have policies for limiting A-SC, and these have higher IF. The J-SC rate among CCM journals is highly variable and higher in "topic-specific" interest CCM journals. Excluding self-referencing practice from scientific metrics calculation could be valuable to tackle this scientific malpractice.

Indexed as

AuthorsCitationsImpact factorIntensive CareJournalsPoliciesSelf-citations

Identifiers

PMID33499899
PMCPMC7836441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.