Mixing
Counter strategy against group that repeatedly does strategic self-citations and ignores other relevant research
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
82
down vote
favorite
There is a group in our small field that almost exclusively cites themselves. Their latest paper has 35% self-citations, which is 80% of the citations within the field. They only reference their own work in talks, presenting it (e.g. to industry) as if they are the only group doing research in this field. When they refer to the work of other groups they do it with a handwave, e.g. in a little corner of their slide with misspelled names.
Their name is attached to a well-known university and they had influential and excellent papers in the field, so most people cite them in their papers, but it increasingly feels as if we are helping a career-boosting strategy here. I have witnessed that they were already criticised in review rounds for ignoring other people's work and not giving credit, but they continued the self-citing in new publications, either seeing nothing wrong with it or following a strategy. They often seem to get away with it. About two years ago they had a publication where the main result was already published by another group in our field years ago, and they did not cite them.
Is there a counter strategy against this behaviour?
citations self-promotion
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
82
down vote
favorite
There is a group in our small field that almost exclusively cites themselves. Their latest paper has 35% self-citations, which is 80% of the citations within the field. They only reference their own work in talks, presenting it (e.g. to industry) as if they are the only group doing research in this field. When they refer to the work of other groups they do it with a handwave, e.g. in a little corner of their slide with misspelled names.
Their name is attached to a well-known university and they had influential and excellent papers in the field, so most people cite them in their papers, but it increasingly feels as if we are helping a career-boosting strategy here. I have witnessed that they were already criticised in review rounds for ignoring other people's work and not giving credit, but they continued the self-citing in new publications, either seeing nothing wrong with it or following a strategy. They often seem to get away with it. About two years ago they had a publication where the main result was already published by another group in our field years ago, and they did not cite them.
Is there a counter strategy against this behaviour?
citations self-promotion
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
47
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
2
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
17
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
82
down vote
favorite
up vote
82
down vote
favorite
There is a group in our small field that almost exclusively cites themselves. Their latest paper has 35% self-citations, which is 80% of the citations within the field. They only reference their own work in talks, presenting it (e.g. to industry) as if they are the only group doing research in this field. When they refer to the work of other groups they do it with a handwave, e.g. in a little corner of their slide with misspelled names.
Their name is attached to a well-known university and they had influential and excellent papers in the field, so most people cite them in their papers, but it increasingly feels as if we are helping a career-boosting strategy here. I have witnessed that they were already criticised in review rounds for ignoring other people's work and not giving credit, but they continued the self-citing in new publications, either seeing nothing wrong with it or following a strategy. They often seem to get away with it. About two years ago they had a publication where the main result was already published by another group in our field years ago, and they did not cite them.
Is there a counter strategy against this behaviour?
citations self-promotion
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
There is a group in our small field that almost exclusively cites themselves. Their latest paper has 35% self-citations, which is 80% of the citations within the field. They only reference their own work in talks, presenting it (e.g. to industry) as if they are the only group doing research in this field. When they refer to the work of other groups they do it with a handwave, e.g. in a little corner of their slide with misspelled names.
Their name is attached to a well-known university and they had influential and excellent papers in the field, so most people cite them in their papers, but it increasingly feels as if we are helping a career-boosting strategy here. I have witnessed that they were already criticised in review rounds for ignoring other people's work and not giving credit, but they continued the self-citing in new publications, either seeing nothing wrong with it or following a strategy. They often seem to get away with it. About two years ago they had a publication where the main result was already published by another group in our field years ago, and they did not cite them.
Is there a counter strategy against this behaviour?
citations self-promotion
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
edited 2 days ago
Wrzlprmft♦
32.1k9105176
32.1k9105176
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
asked Sep 6 at 10:04
Marius
49446
49446
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Marius is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
47
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
2
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
17
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
47
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
2
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
17
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago
47
47
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
2
2
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
17
17
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
64
down vote
First, I think it's important to have a more precise diagnosis of the problem.
Self-citations by themselves are not necessarily a problem---even 30% self-citations might be quite reasonable depending on circumstances (e.g., work in a very narrow but deep niche). Likewise, re-inventing a result is not necessarily a problem if the prior result is in another community and your community was genuinely unaware of it.
Failing to properly credit the work of others when made aware of it, on the other hand, is definitely a problem, and can be addressed by the community of peers:
For journal articles, the peer reviewers can simply insist on citations. It's very easy to add a citation in revision and pretty much never a reason not to cite closely related work. Furthermore, reviewers get to see it again and don't have to say "accept" until they are satisfied. Thus, unless the editor thinks the failure to cite is OK, it's easy to force the citations to be added as a condition of publication (or they can go to a crap journal instead, which is worse for them).
For conference papers, it is more difficult to insist on citation, since there is often no second round of review. Here, I would recommend invoking the ongoing pattern of failure to cite in a review as a reason for giving a low score, thus signaling that this does not appear to be an accidental oversight.
For slides, of course, there is no pre-presentation review, but there are post-presentation questions. "I notice that you failed to mention Smith's prior work on this problem, would you care to comment on its relationship to your work?", "How does your results compare to Xu et al's results on the problem?" Embarrass them in front of the peers, and they will be motivated to improve---and more importantly, the peers will be motivated to make the same requests.
None of these strategies are things that you can really do just by yourself. But if it's a legitimate issue (as opposed to, for example, a potential distorted view of the significance of your own work), then other peers will hopefully have noticed as well and can be doing the same.
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
What you encounter is unfortunately common, even 20 years ago. I don't know if there is an English equivalent, but it is called in German Zitierkartell (citation cartel). I encountered it the first time when I researched phase-unwrapping algorithms for speckle interferometry in my Diplom, there were people working on network algorithms, region-growing algorithm, branch-cut algorithm and least-squares algorithm. Every single one was citing only their own research and of friendly groups.
What can you do against it? Essentially nothing from a higher instance. The only thing which prohibits it is a thing called "scientific ethos" which has now the conservation status of "Vulnerable" or even more pessimistic, "Endangered". It is not forbidden to ignore other people's work. Worse, it does work. By citing own and friendly work and getting cited in return, the citation index is inflated. It's the same method as the Salamitaktik, salami-slicing, instead of putting content in one paper, spread it thin over five to get more citations (in English: "least publishable units").
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return, so in time several citation cartels begin to grow, each fighting for funding. As citation cartels are unethical and unethical behavior seldom comes alone, you can look up their papers and search intently for data fudging and scientific misconduct. It goes without saying that you should have an impeccable record because you can expect retaliation in return.
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Science is not a competition.
The "counter strategy" is to ignore the "problem" and do excellent science yourself. They are making a fool of themselves, and most other scientists will realise that as well. Behave like a responsible scientist, cite them if you need to, and only cite their relevant and interesting papers (as you would normally do anyway).
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
 |Â
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
64
down vote
First, I think it's important to have a more precise diagnosis of the problem.
Self-citations by themselves are not necessarily a problem---even 30% self-citations might be quite reasonable depending on circumstances (e.g., work in a very narrow but deep niche). Likewise, re-inventing a result is not necessarily a problem if the prior result is in another community and your community was genuinely unaware of it.
Failing to properly credit the work of others when made aware of it, on the other hand, is definitely a problem, and can be addressed by the community of peers:
For journal articles, the peer reviewers can simply insist on citations. It's very easy to add a citation in revision and pretty much never a reason not to cite closely related work. Furthermore, reviewers get to see it again and don't have to say "accept" until they are satisfied. Thus, unless the editor thinks the failure to cite is OK, it's easy to force the citations to be added as a condition of publication (or they can go to a crap journal instead, which is worse for them).
For conference papers, it is more difficult to insist on citation, since there is often no second round of review. Here, I would recommend invoking the ongoing pattern of failure to cite in a review as a reason for giving a low score, thus signaling that this does not appear to be an accidental oversight.
For slides, of course, there is no pre-presentation review, but there are post-presentation questions. "I notice that you failed to mention Smith's prior work on this problem, would you care to comment on its relationship to your work?", "How does your results compare to Xu et al's results on the problem?" Embarrass them in front of the peers, and they will be motivated to improve---and more importantly, the peers will be motivated to make the same requests.
None of these strategies are things that you can really do just by yourself. But if it's a legitimate issue (as opposed to, for example, a potential distorted view of the significance of your own work), then other peers will hopefully have noticed as well and can be doing the same.
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
64
down vote
First, I think it's important to have a more precise diagnosis of the problem.
Self-citations by themselves are not necessarily a problem---even 30% self-citations might be quite reasonable depending on circumstances (e.g., work in a very narrow but deep niche). Likewise, re-inventing a result is not necessarily a problem if the prior result is in another community and your community was genuinely unaware of it.
Failing to properly credit the work of others when made aware of it, on the other hand, is definitely a problem, and can be addressed by the community of peers:
For journal articles, the peer reviewers can simply insist on citations. It's very easy to add a citation in revision and pretty much never a reason not to cite closely related work. Furthermore, reviewers get to see it again and don't have to say "accept" until they are satisfied. Thus, unless the editor thinks the failure to cite is OK, it's easy to force the citations to be added as a condition of publication (or they can go to a crap journal instead, which is worse for them).
For conference papers, it is more difficult to insist on citation, since there is often no second round of review. Here, I would recommend invoking the ongoing pattern of failure to cite in a review as a reason for giving a low score, thus signaling that this does not appear to be an accidental oversight.
For slides, of course, there is no pre-presentation review, but there are post-presentation questions. "I notice that you failed to mention Smith's prior work on this problem, would you care to comment on its relationship to your work?", "How does your results compare to Xu et al's results on the problem?" Embarrass them in front of the peers, and they will be motivated to improve---and more importantly, the peers will be motivated to make the same requests.
None of these strategies are things that you can really do just by yourself. But if it's a legitimate issue (as opposed to, for example, a potential distorted view of the significance of your own work), then other peers will hopefully have noticed as well and can be doing the same.
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
64
down vote
up vote
64
down vote
First, I think it's important to have a more precise diagnosis of the problem.
Self-citations by themselves are not necessarily a problem---even 30% self-citations might be quite reasonable depending on circumstances (e.g., work in a very narrow but deep niche). Likewise, re-inventing a result is not necessarily a problem if the prior result is in another community and your community was genuinely unaware of it.
Failing to properly credit the work of others when made aware of it, on the other hand, is definitely a problem, and can be addressed by the community of peers:
For journal articles, the peer reviewers can simply insist on citations. It's very easy to add a citation in revision and pretty much never a reason not to cite closely related work. Furthermore, reviewers get to see it again and don't have to say "accept" until they are satisfied. Thus, unless the editor thinks the failure to cite is OK, it's easy to force the citations to be added as a condition of publication (or they can go to a crap journal instead, which is worse for them).
For conference papers, it is more difficult to insist on citation, since there is often no second round of review. Here, I would recommend invoking the ongoing pattern of failure to cite in a review as a reason for giving a low score, thus signaling that this does not appear to be an accidental oversight.
For slides, of course, there is no pre-presentation review, but there are post-presentation questions. "I notice that you failed to mention Smith's prior work on this problem, would you care to comment on its relationship to your work?", "How does your results compare to Xu et al's results on the problem?" Embarrass them in front of the peers, and they will be motivated to improve---and more importantly, the peers will be motivated to make the same requests.
None of these strategies are things that you can really do just by yourself. But if it's a legitimate issue (as opposed to, for example, a potential distorted view of the significance of your own work), then other peers will hopefully have noticed as well and can be doing the same.
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
First, I think it's important to have a more precise diagnosis of the problem.
Self-citations by themselves are not necessarily a problem---even 30% self-citations might be quite reasonable depending on circumstances (e.g., work in a very narrow but deep niche). Likewise, re-inventing a result is not necessarily a problem if the prior result is in another community and your community was genuinely unaware of it.
Failing to properly credit the work of others when made aware of it, on the other hand, is definitely a problem, and can be addressed by the community of peers:
For journal articles, the peer reviewers can simply insist on citations. It's very easy to add a citation in revision and pretty much never a reason not to cite closely related work. Furthermore, reviewers get to see it again and don't have to say "accept" until they are satisfied. Thus, unless the editor thinks the failure to cite is OK, it's easy to force the citations to be added as a condition of publication (or they can go to a crap journal instead, which is worse for them).
For conference papers, it is more difficult to insist on citation, since there is often no second round of review. Here, I would recommend invoking the ongoing pattern of failure to cite in a review as a reason for giving a low score, thus signaling that this does not appear to be an accidental oversight.
For slides, of course, there is no pre-presentation review, but there are post-presentation questions. "I notice that you failed to mention Smith's prior work on this problem, would you care to comment on its relationship to your work?", "How does your results compare to Xu et al's results on the problem?" Embarrass them in front of the peers, and they will be motivated to improve---and more importantly, the peers will be motivated to make the same requests.
None of these strategies are things that you can really do just by yourself. But if it's a legitimate issue (as opposed to, for example, a potential distorted view of the significance of your own work), then other peers will hopefully have noticed as well and can be doing the same.
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
edited Sep 6 at 11:40
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
answered Sep 6 at 10:47
jakebeal
142k30504747
142k30504747
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
26
26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
If it really is a small field, being a pain as a referee might actually be quite effective. Sure, you probably won't get to review all their papers, but if you get them to cite paper X once, maybe others will say "you cited X in your last paper, but not this one. Why?" during the next submission, and so on. And editors will likely catch the drift, if they haven't already.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 11:26
4
4
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
I agree with this answer and @Anyon. Just wanted to add that self-citations are sometimes a good way to help "new readers" catch up or follow the paper, particularly if you want the paper to be used by others to do more research. However, it appears this group is abusing this mechanism for self-promotion instead of scientific purpose.
– SecretAgentMan
Sep 6 at 13:56
22
22
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
From experience, the questions during a presentation tactic is much less effective when the presenter has no sense of shame
– Phil Miller
Sep 6 at 15:48
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
@PhilMiller I often feel does realisation only comes with age, and truth indeed, from SE stats 40-50 olds are a minority here.
– Rui F Ribeiro
2 days ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
13
down vote
What you encounter is unfortunately common, even 20 years ago. I don't know if there is an English equivalent, but it is called in German Zitierkartell (citation cartel). I encountered it the first time when I researched phase-unwrapping algorithms for speckle interferometry in my Diplom, there were people working on network algorithms, region-growing algorithm, branch-cut algorithm and least-squares algorithm. Every single one was citing only their own research and of friendly groups.
What can you do against it? Essentially nothing from a higher instance. The only thing which prohibits it is a thing called "scientific ethos" which has now the conservation status of "Vulnerable" or even more pessimistic, "Endangered". It is not forbidden to ignore other people's work. Worse, it does work. By citing own and friendly work and getting cited in return, the citation index is inflated. It's the same method as the Salamitaktik, salami-slicing, instead of putting content in one paper, spread it thin over five to get more citations (in English: "least publishable units").
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return, so in time several citation cartels begin to grow, each fighting for funding. As citation cartels are unethical and unethical behavior seldom comes alone, you can look up their papers and search intently for data fudging and scientific misconduct. It goes without saying that you should have an impeccable record because you can expect retaliation in return.
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
What you encounter is unfortunately common, even 20 years ago. I don't know if there is an English equivalent, but it is called in German Zitierkartell (citation cartel). I encountered it the first time when I researched phase-unwrapping algorithms for speckle interferometry in my Diplom, there were people working on network algorithms, region-growing algorithm, branch-cut algorithm and least-squares algorithm. Every single one was citing only their own research and of friendly groups.
What can you do against it? Essentially nothing from a higher instance. The only thing which prohibits it is a thing called "scientific ethos" which has now the conservation status of "Vulnerable" or even more pessimistic, "Endangered". It is not forbidden to ignore other people's work. Worse, it does work. By citing own and friendly work and getting cited in return, the citation index is inflated. It's the same method as the Salamitaktik, salami-slicing, instead of putting content in one paper, spread it thin over five to get more citations (in English: "least publishable units").
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return, so in time several citation cartels begin to grow, each fighting for funding. As citation cartels are unethical and unethical behavior seldom comes alone, you can look up their papers and search intently for data fudging and scientific misconduct. It goes without saying that you should have an impeccable record because you can expect retaliation in return.
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
13
down vote
up vote
13
down vote
What you encounter is unfortunately common, even 20 years ago. I don't know if there is an English equivalent, but it is called in German Zitierkartell (citation cartel). I encountered it the first time when I researched phase-unwrapping algorithms for speckle interferometry in my Diplom, there were people working on network algorithms, region-growing algorithm, branch-cut algorithm and least-squares algorithm. Every single one was citing only their own research and of friendly groups.
What can you do against it? Essentially nothing from a higher instance. The only thing which prohibits it is a thing called "scientific ethos" which has now the conservation status of "Vulnerable" or even more pessimistic, "Endangered". It is not forbidden to ignore other people's work. Worse, it does work. By citing own and friendly work and getting cited in return, the citation index is inflated. It's the same method as the Salamitaktik, salami-slicing, instead of putting content in one paper, spread it thin over five to get more citations (in English: "least publishable units").
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return, so in time several citation cartels begin to grow, each fighting for funding. As citation cartels are unethical and unethical behavior seldom comes alone, you can look up their papers and search intently for data fudging and scientific misconduct. It goes without saying that you should have an impeccable record because you can expect retaliation in return.
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
What you encounter is unfortunately common, even 20 years ago. I don't know if there is an English equivalent, but it is called in German Zitierkartell (citation cartel). I encountered it the first time when I researched phase-unwrapping algorithms for speckle interferometry in my Diplom, there were people working on network algorithms, region-growing algorithm, branch-cut algorithm and least-squares algorithm. Every single one was citing only their own research and of friendly groups.
What can you do against it? Essentially nothing from a higher instance. The only thing which prohibits it is a thing called "scientific ethos" which has now the conservation status of "Vulnerable" or even more pessimistic, "Endangered". It is not forbidden to ignore other people's work. Worse, it does work. By citing own and friendly work and getting cited in return, the citation index is inflated. It's the same method as the Salamitaktik, salami-slicing, instead of putting content in one paper, spread it thin over five to get more citations (in English: "least publishable units").
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return, so in time several citation cartels begin to grow, each fighting for funding. As citation cartels are unethical and unethical behavior seldom comes alone, you can look up their papers and search intently for data fudging and scientific misconduct. It goes without saying that you should have an impeccable record because you can expect retaliation in return.
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
edited Sep 7 at 17:36
Anyon
2,69511627
2,69511627
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
answered Sep 6 at 21:12
Thorsten S.
4,44721026
4,44721026
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
14
14
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
Now I want to know all the German words for academic misconduct.
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 21:37
7
7
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
Citation cartel is in some use in English too, but citation ring is probably more common. I personally think cartel is a better term.
– Anyon
Sep 6 at 22:05
1
1
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
Thanks for the insights. We have all the technical means now to make the excessive self-citing part of citation cartels more visible, and it is also necessary due to now-accepted measures such as the h-index. Maybe GoogleScholar will consider making self-citations more visible to reveal the ones who exceed reasonable amounts.
– Marius
Sep 7 at 11:45
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
So the only way to punish the perpetrators is doing the same in return — Or you could, you know, do the ethical thing instead.
– JeffE
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
@JeffE It is a typical prisoner dilemma: If everyone cooperates you are much better off than if everyone prefers rivalry. But if one person breaks the cooperation, he gets a temporary advantage. One of the best and easiest strategies who allows cooperation, but punishes violators is Tit for tat. If the ethical stance does not influence jerks, it is of no use. And no, they don't understand why you are doing this voluntarily.
– Thorsten S.
2 days ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Science is not a competition.
The "counter strategy" is to ignore the "problem" and do excellent science yourself. They are making a fool of themselves, and most other scientists will realise that as well. Behave like a responsible scientist, cite them if you need to, and only cite their relevant and interesting papers (as you would normally do anyway).
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
Science is not a competition.
The "counter strategy" is to ignore the "problem" and do excellent science yourself. They are making a fool of themselves, and most other scientists will realise that as well. Behave like a responsible scientist, cite them if you need to, and only cite their relevant and interesting papers (as you would normally do anyway).
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Science is not a competition.
The "counter strategy" is to ignore the "problem" and do excellent science yourself. They are making a fool of themselves, and most other scientists will realise that as well. Behave like a responsible scientist, cite them if you need to, and only cite their relevant and interesting papers (as you would normally do anyway).
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
Science is not a competition.
The "counter strategy" is to ignore the "problem" and do excellent science yourself. They are making a fool of themselves, and most other scientists will realise that as well. Behave like a responsible scientist, cite them if you need to, and only cite their relevant and interesting papers (as you would normally do anyway).
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
edited Sep 6 at 13:00
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
answered Sep 6 at 10:19
louic
3,6401130
3,6401130
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
 |Â
show 3 more comments
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
123
123
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
Science might not be, but funding is.
– Peter Taylor
Sep 6 at 10:35
28
28
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
" you can only hope for funding decisions to be reasonable" Hah!!! I've had a funding request rejected, with a single person giving the following two reasons: (1) the proposed work is impossible to achieve and (2) the proposed work has already been done and published. Illogical, captain?
– alephzero
Sep 6 at 13:38
21
21
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
Science is indeed not a competition, but that doesn't mean that unethical behaviour in science doesn't exist. If OP's impression is correct, and this group's behaviour is so bad that it amounts to a misrepresentation that is negatively and significantly impacting non-specialists' perceptions about the relative impact of the different contributions to the field, then it is certainly problematic and potentially amounts to research misconduct. That isn't "just deal with it" material. (Assuming, of course, that OP's impression is correct. It may well not be, but the if-then still holds.)
– E.P.
Sep 6 at 14:32
12
12
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
"There is no way you can change the behaviour of others" Not true at all. That's the whole point of this question (and jakebeal's answer).
– user76284
Sep 6 at 15:43
4
4
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
Everything in life is a competition. Science is race. If not, why do we care so much about who did something first? Moreover, science is a popularity contest. If not, why would we care about citation counts and impact factors? Just like any other formal contest, if someone brakes the rules then there should be penalties, disqualification, suspensions etc. To make it more fair and to create disincentives for those who want to cheat.
– Asdf
Sep 7 at 0:37
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Marius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Marius is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f116489%2fcounter-strategy-against-group-that-repeatedly-does-strategic-self-citations-and%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
47
In the special case you mentioned in the end, that the result was already known and not cited, a message to the editor might help. Of course assume in the email that they simply didn't know of the previous work, don't go claiming that they deliberately ignored it.
– Dirk Liebhold
Sep 6 at 10:33
2
What is a typical self-citation rate in your (sub) field?
– Azor Ahai
Sep 6 at 16:42
17
Publish a paper in a statistics journal analyzing the effect of their self citing behavior and draw correlations between inflated scores, failure to cite others, and increased funding and job opportunities for the grad students. Then, either you will find something interesting and shame them, or find out that their self citing is not actually a big problem.
– aidan.plenert.macdonald
Sep 6 at 22:57
You can make the point graphically about the clique by plotting the network graph of publications, citations, people, groups and cliques
– smci
Sep 7 at 22:59
It really sucks but sadly enough if they are at some fancy place there is usually very little you can do about it (from bitter experience).
– user_of_math
2 days ago