Journal of Psychosomatic Research
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
Received: March 29, 2014; Received in revised form: August 14, 2014;
Accepted: September 11, 2014; Published Online: October 01, 2014
•Coercive citations in peer reviews are citations primarily intended
to highlight the reviewer's work.
•Of 428 total citations in the reviews, 122 (29%) were self-citations
to the reviewer's own work.
•Self-citations were more common in reviews recommending revision or
acceptance (33%) versus rejection (15%).
•21% of reviewer self-citations had no rationale compared to 5% in
citations to others' work.
•Self-citation in peer review is common and is likely coercive in some cases.
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 < 0.001).
Conclusions
Self-citation in peer reviews is common and may reflect a combination
of appropriate citation to research that should be cited in published
articles and inappropriate citation intended to highlight the work of
the peer reviewer.
Providing instructions to peer reviewers about
self-citation and asking them to indicate when and why they have
self-cited may help to limit self-citation to appropriate,
constructive recommendations.
Keywords:
Peer review, Self-citation, Journalology, Publishing ethics
