Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time (1607.00376v2)

Abstract: How common is self-citation in scholarly publication, and does the practice vary by gender? Using novel methods and a data set of 1.5 million research papers in the scholarly database JSTOR published between 1779 and 2011, the authors find that nearly 10 percent of references are self-citations by a paper's authors. The findings also show that between 1779 and 2011, men cited their own papers 56 percent more than did women. In the last two decades of data, men self-cited 70 percent more than women. Women are also more than 10 percentage points more likely than men to not cite their own previous work at all. While these patterns could result from differences in the number of papers that men and women authors have published rather than gender-specific patterns of self-citation behavior, this gender gap in self-citation rates has remained stable over the last 50 years, despite increased representation of women in academia. The authors break down self-citation patterns by academic field and number of authors and comment on potential mechanisms behind these observations. These findings have important implications for scholarly visibility and cumulative advantage in academic careers.

• The paper reveals that men self-cite 56% more frequently than women overall, rising to 70% in recent decades.
• The analysis uses a dataset of 1.5 million papers from JSTOR spanning 1779 to 2011 to examine citation patterns across fields.
• The findings suggest that self-citation practices contribute to cumulative advantage, amplifying gender disparities in academic visibility and career progression.

An Analysis of Gender and Self-Citation Patterns in Academic Research

This paper presents a comprehensive examination of self-citation practices in academic publishing from a gender perspective. Utilizing a dataset of 1.5 million research papers from the JSTOR corpus spanning the period from 1779 to 2011, the paper provides a rigorous analysis of patterns across various fields and temporal frameworks.

The research identifies self-citation as a substantial factor in scholarly communication, constituting nearly 10% of all references within the dataset. This underscores the potential influence of self-citations on an author's perceived impact and visibility in academia. Notably, the paper reveals a consistent gender disparity in self-citation rates: men are observed to self-cite 56% more frequently than women. This figure rises to 70% in publications from the last two decades of the dataset. Women are shown to be over 10 percentage points more likely than men to not cite their own prior work.

The persistence of this gender gap in self-citation rates, despite increasing female representation in academia, suggests underlying structural and possibly behavioral factors that warrant further exploration. The authors speculate on several potential mechanisms that may contribute to these disparities, including differing self-assessment and self-promotion tendencies between genders, variations in specialization patterns, publication quantity disparities, and differential responses to publication types.

The data is meticulously dissected by academic field, with molecular biology and classical studies highlighted as fields with the highest and lowest self-citation rates, respectively. Despite the variability across fields, no strong correlation emerges between the proportion of female authorships in a field and the gender disparity in self-citations, suggesting that the issue transcends simple proportionality.

Implications of these findings are profound. Self-citation practices contribute to cumulative advantage, amplifying disparities in academic visibility and recognition that may already exist due to other gender biases in academia. The paper suggests that addressing gender gaps in self-citation could mitigate some of the systemic disadvantages that women face in obtaining tenure, promotions, and equitable salary opportunities.

The paper raises important questions about evaluation metrics in academic careers. It emphasizes the need for adjustment in how impact is assessed, proposing that measures excluding self-citations may offer a more equitable approach. Such considerations are critical for university hiring and tenure committees aiming to foster a more gender-equitable academic environment.

In extrapolating from the data, future research directions may include further investigation into the behavioral norms around self-citation and exploration of field-specific publishing cultures. Additionally, examination of how these trends evolve with ongoing shifts in academic authorship demographics could provide further insight into potential interventions.

This research contributes to the broader discourse on gender dynamics in academia, highlighting the complexity of citation behaviors and their implications for career trajectories and scholarly influence.