Self-Citation Rates Among Neurosurgery Journals and Authors: Unethical or Misunderstood?

Abstract

The role of self-citation has not been discussed in the neurosurgery literature, although citations, citation indices, and impact of research may enhance funding opportunities, academic positions, fellowship opportunities, employment, and professional identity development. We sought to assess the magnitude and role of self-citation in academic neurosurgery. We performed a retrospective analysis of the citation and self-citation rates of articles published in 2001-2020 in 7 major neurosurgery journals: Acta Neurochirurgica, Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Neurosurgery, Neurosurgical Review, and World Neurosurgery. The total number of citations was highest for Journal of Neurosurgery and lowest for Neurosurgical Review. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest average number of citations per article, followed closely by Journal of Neurosurgery. The self-citation rate increased for all journals over the time period 2001-2020. The highest number of self-citations per article during 2016-2020 was seen in Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics and World Neurosurgery. Neurosurgical Review had the lowest number of self-citations per article. Academic neurosurgeons must understand the ecosystem around self-citation. In our study, we found overall low levels of self-citations in neurosurgery journals with a few outliers. We have, however, noticed an increasing trend in self-citation rates. Self-citation rates should be considered while evaluating the impact of an author and research productivity. Contrary to popular belief, self-citation is not always unethical and must be understood within its circumstances.