A Large-Scale Analysis of Impact Factor Biased Journal Self-Citations

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics and scientometrics
• Scholarly communication analysis
• Scientific publishing trends

Background:

• Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is a key metric for evaluating scholarly journals.
• Concerns exist regarding biased self-citation practices inflating journal impact.
• Previous measures for detecting self-citation bias have limitations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To develop and validate a novel citation-based measure for detecting impact factor biased self-citations.
• To analyze trends in journal self-citation practices over three decades.
• To investigate the relationship between biased self-citations and coercive practices.

Main Methods:

• A new ratio was developed: (relative share of recent self-citations) / (relative share of older self-citations).
• A ratio > 1 indicates potential impact factor inflation due to self-citations.
• Analysis of three decades of citation data across diverse scientific fields.
• Correlation with survey data on coercive journal self-citation malpractices.

Main Results:

• The proportion of journals with a high self-citation bias measure has remained stable from the 1980s to the early 2000s.
• A significant increase in journals exhibiting high self-citation bias has been observed since the early 2000s, across all scientific fields.
• This rise coincides with the increased emphasis on the Impact Factor for journal evaluation.

Conclusions:

• The study indicates a growing prevalence of journal self-citation malpractices.
• This trend contributes to inflated perceptions of journal importance and biased journal rankings.
• The findings highlight the need for critical assessment of journal metrics and citation behaviors.