Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Detecting potential reference list manipulation within a citation network

View ORCID ProfileJonathan D. Wren, Constantin Georgescu
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.12.248369
Jonathan D. Wren
1Genes and Human Disease Research Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 825 N.E. 13th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104-5005
2Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Dept, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
3Stephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
4Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jonathan D. Wren
  • For correspondence: jdwren@gmail.com jonathan-wren@omrf.org
Constantin Georgescu
1Genes and Human Disease Research Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, 825 N.E. 13th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104-5005
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Although citations are used as a quantifiable, objective metric of academic influence, cases have been documented whereby references were added to a paper solely to inflate the perceived influence of a body of research. This reference list manipulation (RLM) could take place during the peer-review process (e.g., coercive citation from editors or reviewers), or prior to it (e.g., a quid-pro-quo between authors). Surveys have estimated how many people may have been affected by coercive RLM at one time or another, but it is not known how many authors engage in RLM, nor to what degree. Examining a subset of active, highly published authors (n=20,803) in PubMed, we find the frequency of non-self citations (NSC) to one author coming from one paper approximates Zipf’s law. We propose the Gini Index as a simple means of quantifying skew in this distribution and test it against a series of “red flag” metrics that are expected to result from RLM attempts. We estimate between 81 (FDR <0.05) and 231 (FDR<0.10) authors are outliers on the curve, suggestive of chronic, repeated RLM. Based upon the distribution, we estimate approximately 3,284 (16%) of all authors may have engaged in RLM to some degree, possibly opportunistically. Finally, we find authors who use 18% or more of their references for self-citation are significantly more likely to have NSC Gini distortions, suggesting their desire to see their work cited carries over into their peer-review activity.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted August 13, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detecting potential reference list manipulation within a citation network
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Detecting potential reference list manipulation within a citation network
Jonathan D. Wren, Constantin Georgescu
bioRxiv 2020.08.12.248369; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.12.248369
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Detecting potential reference list manipulation within a citation network
Jonathan D. Wren, Constantin Georgescu
bioRxiv 2020.08.12.248369; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.12.248369

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4105)
  • Biochemistry (8808)
  • Bioengineering (6509)
  • Bioinformatics (23446)
  • Biophysics (11784)
  • Cancer Biology (9199)
  • Cell Biology (13314)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7430)
  • Ecology (11403)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15143)
  • Genetics (10430)
  • Genomics (14036)
  • Immunology (9167)
  • Microbiology (22142)
  • Molecular Biology (8802)
  • Neuroscience (47539)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1427)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2489)
  • Physiology (3729)
  • Plant Biology (8076)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1437)
  • Synthetic Biology (2220)
  • Systems Biology (6036)
  • Zoology (1252)