Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study

Brett D. Thombs; Alexander W. Levis; Ilya Razykov; Achyuth Syamchandra; Albert F. G. Leentjens; James L. Levenson; Mark A. Lumley

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015

Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study

Brett D. Thombs^*, Alexander W. Levis, Ilya Razykov, Achyuth Syamchandra, Albert F. G. Leentjens, James L. Levenson, Mark A. Lumley

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Objective: Peer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. Methods: Peer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. Results: There were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; p <0.001). The percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; p

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1-6
Journal	Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Volume	78
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015
Publication status	Published - Jan 2015

Keywords

Peer review
Self-citation
Journalology
Publishing ethics

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015Licence: Unspecified

Cite this

@article{02009fe4fd2e4610a118d4a217c564ea,

title = "Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study",

abstract = "Objective: Peer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. Methods: Peer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. Results: There were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; p <0.001). The percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; p ",

keywords = "Peer review, Self-citation, Journalology, Publishing ethics",

author = "Thombs, {Brett D.} and Levis, {Alexander W.} and Ilya Razykov and Achyuth Syamchandra and Leentjens, {Albert F. G.} and Levenson, {James L.} and Lumley, {Mark A.}",

year = "2015",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015",

language = "English",

volume = "78",

pages = "1--6",

journal = "Journal of Psychosomatic Research",

issn = "0022-3999",

publisher = "Elsevier Science",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Potentially coercive self-citation by peer reviewers: A cross-sectional study

AU - Thombs, Brett D.

AU - Levis, Alexander W.

AU - Razykov, Ilya

AU - Syamchandra, Achyuth

AU - Leentjens, Albert F. G.

AU - Levenson, James L.

AU - Lumley, Mark A.

PY - 2015/1

Y1 - 2015/1

N2 - Objective: Peer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. Methods: Peer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. Results: There were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; p <0.001). The percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; p

AB - Objective: Peer reviewers sometimes request that authors cite their work, either appropriately or via coercive self-citation to highlight the reviewers' work The objective of this study was to determine in peer reviews submitted to one biomedical journal (1) the extent of peer reviewer self-citation; (2) the proportion of reviews recommending revision or acceptance versus rejection that included reviewer self-citations; and (3) the proportion of reviewer self-citations versus citations to others that included a rationale. Methods: Peer reviews for manuscripts submitted in 2012 to the Journal of Psychosomatic Research were evaluated. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. Results: There were 616 peer reviews (526 reviewers; 276 manuscripts), of which 444 recommended revision or acceptance and 172 rejection. Of 428 total citations, there were 122 peer reviewer self-citations (29%) and 306 citations to others' work (71%). Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or acceptance (105 of 316 citations; 33%) versus rejection (17/112; 15%; p <0.001). The percentage of self-citations with no rationale (26 of 122; 21%) was higher than for citations to others' work (15 of 306; 5%; p

KW - Peer review

KW - Self-citation

KW - Journalology

KW - Publishing ethics

U2 - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015

DO - 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.09.015

M3 - Article

C2 - 25300537

SN - 0022-3999

VL - 78

SP - 1

EP - 6

JO - Journal of Psychosomatic Research

JF - Journal of Psychosomatic Research

IS - 1

ER -