ArticleeLife2025
Trends in self-citation rates in high-impact neurology, neuroscience, and psychiatry journals.
Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Girls just wanna have funds: a new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Characteristics of the top 100 most cited prepsoas (anterior to psoas/oblique lumbar interbody fusion) lumbar interbody fusion articles: A bibliometric study of the literature.Journal of craniovertebral junction & spineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Citation metrics influence academic reputation and career trajectories. Recent works have highlighted flaws in citation practices in the Neurosciences, such as the under-citation of women. However, self-citation rates-or how much authors cite themselves-have not yet been comprehensively investigated in the Neurosciences. This work characterizes self-citation rates in basic, translational, and clinical Neuroscience literature by collating 100,347 articles from 63 journals between the years 2000-2020. In analyzing over five million citations, we demonstrate four key findings: (1) increasing self-citation rates of Last Authors relative to First Authors, (2) lower self-citation rates in low- and middle-income countries, (3) gender differences in self-citation stemming from differences in the number of previously published papers, and (4) variations in self-citation rates by field. Our characterization of self-citation provides insight into citation practices that shape the perceived influence of authors in the Neurosciences, which in turn may impact what type of scientific research is done and who gets the opportunity to do it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.