Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL 32610-0254, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2011 Aug;113(2):378-82. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31821d72e5. Epub 2011 May 19.
INTRODUCTION: After submission of a manuscript to a peer-reviewed anesthesia journal, several authors were asked to cite additional references from the journal to which they submitted. We hypothesized that there were differences among the anesthesiology journals in both the total number of self-citations and the proportion of self-citations to the total number of references in each manuscript for the years 2005 and 2010. METHODS: We conducted a review of a sample of manuscripts from 2005 and 2010 to examine the number and rate of self-citations. As a secondary analysis, we reviewed impact factor (IF), rate of self-referencing, and contribution of self-citations to IF in the population of manuscripts published in 8 anesthesia journals between 2000 and 2009 using the ISI Journal Citation Reports. RESULTS: The number (P < 0.0001) and rate (P < 0.0001) of self-citations among the different journals were significantly different in 2005, with similar results for 2010 in the number (P < 0.0001) and rate (P = 0.0002) of self-citations. The mean range of number of self-citations ranged from 0.45 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06 to 0.84) to 3.95 (95% CI, 2.2 to 5.7) in 2005 and from 0.25 (95% CI, -0.05 to 0.55) to 4.5 (95% CI, 2.2 to 6.9) in 2010. On a per-journal basis, no difference in the number of self-citations was noted between 2005 and 2010. Analysis of the ISI Journal Citation Reports from 2000 to 2009 suggested a general decline in the contribution of self-cites to the IF over time for the aggregate journals (Spearman correlation coefficient (Rs) -0.25 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.03), P = 0.02), with the exception of the journal in question (Rs = 0.59 (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.88), P = 0.05). Positive correlations were found between self-cited rate and IF (Rs 0.52, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.66, P < 0.0001), percentage of self-cites to years used in IF calculation and IF (Rs 0.41, 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.58, P < 0.0001), and δ-IF and IF (Rs 0.89, 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.93, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Although the number and rate of self-citations differed among anesthesia journals, the contribution of self-citation to IF has declined over time for most anesthesia journals. These results suggest periodic reassessment may be important to ensure that the publication process remains transparent and impartial to bias.
简介：在向同行评审的麻醉学期刊提交手稿后，要求几位作者从他们提交的期刊中引用其他参考文献。我们假设在 2005 年和 2010 年，不同麻醉学期刊的自我引用总数以及每份手稿中自我引用与参考文献总数的比例存在差异。
方法：我们对 2005 年和 2010 年的部分手稿进行了审查，以检查自我引用的数量和比率。作为二次分析，我们使用 ISI 期刊引文报告（JCR）审查了 2000 年至 2009 年期间在 8 种麻醉期刊上发表的手稿的影响因子（IF）、自我引用率以及自我引用对 IF 的贡献。
结果：在 2005 年，不同期刊之间的自我引用数量（P < 0.0001）和比率（P < 0.0001）存在显著差异，2010 年的自我引用数量（P < 0.0001）和比率（P = 0.0002）也存在类似的结果。自我引用数量的平均范围从 2005 年的 0.45（95%置信区间[CI]，0.06 至 0.84）到 3.95（95% CI，2.2 至 5.7），2010 年为 0.25（95% CI，-0.05 至 0.55）至 4.5（95% CI，2.2 至 6.9）。按期刊计算，2005 年和 2010 年的自我引用数量没有差异。对 2000 年至 2009 年 ISI 期刊引文报告的分析表明，随着时间的推移，总体而言，自我引用对 IF 的贡献呈下降趋势（综合期刊的 Spearman 相关系数（Rs）-0.25（95% CI，-0.45 至-0.03），P = 0.02），除了有问题的期刊（Rs = 0.59（95% CI，-0.1 至 0.88），P = 0.05）。自我引用率与 IF 之间存在正相关关系（Rs 0.52，95% CI，0.34 至 0.66，P < 0.0001），自我引用比例与 IF 计算中使用的年份的百分比与 IF 之间存在正相关关系（Rs 0.41，95% CI，0.21 至 0.58，P < 0.0001），δ-IF 与 IF 之间存在正相关关系（Rs 0.89，95% CI，0.84 至 0.93，P < 0.0001）。
结论：尽管麻醉学期刊的自我引用数量和比率存在差异，但大多数麻醉学期刊的自我引用对 IF 的贡献随着时间的推移而下降。这些结果表明，定期重新评估可能很重要，以确保出版过程保持透明，避免偏见。
Anesth Analg. 2011-5-19
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2004-10
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2001-3
Anesth Analg. 2012-2-17
Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2003-1
Croat Med J. 2004-12
Health Info Libr J. 2008-3
Multidiscip Respir Med. 2022-7-28
J Intensive Care. 2021-1-26
Zotero 插件