Self-citation policies in anaesthesiology journals

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