A question for research-y people on my f-list

[deelaundry]

Is it just me, or is an author citing his own articles as reinforcement of his ideas kind of... not right?

However, research (AUTHOR NAME 2003a) shows that the more typical ... can often be motivated by ... [author's idea].

This same body of research (AUTHOR NAME 2003a; AUTHOR NAME & SECOND NAME 2000) disputed claims by some scholars ... that the practice of ... [claim of other scholars]. [Quote from different author.]

Additional study (AUTHOR NAME 2004, 2005) seconded this perspective and the notion that [Quote] (AUTHOR NAME & SECOND NAME 2000)

Comments

[chippers87.livejournal.com]

This just made me giggle because I'm sitting here reading the book my professor for his class. It seems similar.

But you're right. It's as though he hasn't made an argument at all.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

It seemed kind of like saying, "My analysis shows I'm right" which is rather circular.

[lynnafer.livejournal.com]

I would think it would depend on the subject matter. If it were something subjective, then citing himself doesn't work. Experimental stuff with results and hard numbers might be ok as long as he's not citing his own conclusions but only the results.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

That makes sense. In this case, the previous work is analysis of anecdotal quotes, which seems to me different from citing prior survey research or results of controlled experiments.

[lynnafer.livejournal.com]

Ok, in this case, I believe the technical term for someone who does this is 'bonehead'. And why cite it at all, hasn't it been established that you can't plagiarise yourself?

[leaper182.livejournal.com]

... say wha, huh huh?

Who cites themselves? Hell, I went through an exercise last semester that specifically said citing previous work of yours was a stupid thing because it's just recycling thought, not adding anything new.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Some folks below point out that an author might want to cite previous work to show they've already addressed a point and aren't going to go into detail in the current work.

In this case, to me, the author seemed to be recycling thought, as you say. : )

[rivers-bend.livejournal.com]

When I was doing my dissertation, I generally only accepted that where the study I was reading was built upon the previous smaller or pilot studies. But using your own findings/ideas as the only counter to other findings/ideas, not so good.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Good point about building on smaller or pilot studies. In this case, it seems more using one's previous conclusions to support the same conclusion in the current work.

[purridot.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I have seen scholars cite their previous work if they want the readers to know that they have already tackled certain aspects of a question elsewhere (so as not to repeat themselves in the current article). But if their only supporting evidence is their own work that might be taking bootstrapping to extremes...!

[bironic.livejournal.com]

What purridot said. I've been taught to put up warning flags when researchers only cite their own work. When nobody else agrees with someone or can replicate the results, you need to ask some tough questions.

On the other hand, citing your own work - amidst other citations - seems to be okay. Sometimes there are trailblazers/Big Names in a field who've established, or are working to establish, stuff, so they build on what they've done before, and others will vouch for them.

/inarticulate

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

In other sections of this work, there are citations of other authors. But in this section, dealing with this particular theory/conclusion the author was putting forward, I was reading along, and thought, "Wow, the author is citing the same person over and over... wait a minute, that is the author!" :D

[photoash.livejournal.com]

I work in clinical trial research -- you do cite your own articles if you're writing about research that is continuing based on previous studies or in hopes of getting further grant funding. I also saw this when I worked in social research that you'd cite previous published articles of your own researched since most research builds off of previous -- and alot of times the same researchers are working on the same issues over and over again.

An example is that when we published the main research papers from the current project I'm working on we'll reference our preliminary papers so that you don't have to restate the set up of the trial to meet the harsh word count restrictions that most clinical journals require (this also happened in my social research projects). Furthermore - when the project I'm on now is over it'll have been the first double blind clinical trial of it's kind with such a large subject group so it'll be cited in all future papers related to analyzing parts of the data etc because there isn't anything else you could cite since it's the first one.
But if this is something not science related then that sounds a bit odd -- but I'm not really familiar with the non-science side of publishing.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

What do you do in clinical trial research (if you don't mind my asking)? I've had some past -- way past :) -- experience with health policy research, and the process is so interesting.

In the case I asked about above, the author is doing qualitative analysis.

[photoash.livejournal.com]

ugh qualitative analysis? that's pretty lame to cite only themselves! :( bleah I don't blame you i'd be very leery too! Heck i'm leery of half the clinical trial research I read >_> after all statistics can be manipulated quite a bit :(

I'm currently a site monitor - I fly around the US visiting the hospitals that are part of our study and inspect our study records and the procedures for data quality etc. I do that 1 week a month the rest of the time I'm working on other data quality issues -- writing data checks/queries and working with the study radiologists about image quality/resends from sites. Our study is related to children's renal health - it's funny our sites are nephrology and urology hospital departments in major teaching hospitals so i laughed when I found out house had a nephrology speciality.

Before this, I was a social research project manager for 5 years in an adult obesity research project and one dealing with older adult health and nutrition.

What kind of work did you used to do? (and may I ask what you do now? :D )

[vitawash24.livejournal.com]

It certainly shouldn't be the only thing he's referencing. But I know my old boss' work built on his previous work, so he did need to cite the results of his own studies sometimes. I think it also happens when the field isn't that big - in my medically unexplained illness class, the authors seem to be constantly citing themselves, but I assume it's because there aren't that many people studying the subject and finding results...

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

The author's field does seem to be relatively small (from my outsider perspective), so that's a good point. It seemed strange to have so many self-citations in a row about a single idea, and the phrasing of "additional study seconded this perspective" seemed disingenous, but a small pool of research/analysis to pull from would definitely limit your options.

[hugelaurie.livejournal.com]

IT DOES SEEM WEIRD BUT IF YOU DON'T CITE YOUR REFERENCES, EVEN IF THEY ARE YOUR OWN PREVIOUS WORKS, YOU CAN GET IN TROUBLE FOR PLAGIARISM. PLUS, IT'S A SHORTHAND FOR SAYING, "I ALREADY EXPLORED PREVIOUS SIMILAR AVENUES AND AM BRANCHING OUT ON THE FINDINGS" AND/OR "LOOK AT WHAT A HOTSHOT FAMOUS BITCH I AM (IN MY OWN HEAD)"

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

VERY TRUE ABOUT CITING ALL REFERENCES. IN THIS CASE, SO MANY SELF-CITATIONS IN A ROW TO SUPPORT THE AUTHOR'S ANALYSIS SEEMED A BIT "MY CONCLUSIONS PROVE MY CONCLUSION."

[benjimmy.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've seen that kind of thing before and gone 'uh, what?' Total cop-out. It kind of makes me think that either the author was incredibly lazy, or didn't have any other sources to back up his information (meaning he's probably wrong about whatever), or just has such an enormous ego that he figures that only his thoughts are worth mentioning/citing/whatever.

I have a feeling that if I'd done that, say, in University, cited papers I'd written previously, I'd have been marked down severely for not having enough sources for whatever it was I was writing.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

People have pointed out that in small fields you often have to cite your own works, because other works aren't out there, so I think that's a major factor here. Having o many self-citations in a row still looks funny to me as an outsider :)

[californiaquail.livejournal.com]

My understanding was that scientifically, you could cite your own articles, if they were published, meaning usually that they'd been signed by another physician who approved of your research.

But if you're talking about something that's purely theoretical, then citing an article is like saying "my uncle Frank thinks so too..."

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

This is a social science work, so it's a little different. People have pointed out that in smaller fields (which it seems to be in this case, based on my internet searching) sometimes you have to cite yourself because so few other published articles are available.

[bironic.livejournal.com]

p.s. If the author is citing him/herself often enough and/or in certain contexts that it's making you suspicious, then you should probably be suspicious.

[poeia.livejournal.com]

As usual, I'm late to the party.

If the author is saying I'm building on my previous work, whether it is quantitative or qualitative and I'm therefore directing you to the study, it's fine.

If he is saying, in essence, that the proof of the validity of his current study is that he's published things on the subject before, that's horseshit.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

The "seconded this perspective" is what made me LOL. Maybe it's just an odd phrasing, but "I second myself" is funny. Heh.

[sabinetzin]

It's pretty common in anthropology, actually. That doesn't stop it being totally hilarious every time though.

I also like on syllabi when the professor assigns hir own book and doesn't point it out, like they're trying to pull a fast one.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Heh. Chippers said, up in the first comment, that her professor has assigned his own book to her class. :D

[sabinetzin]

My professor did that last semester- and I responded by writing a critique of it. Whoops?

[bammel.livejournal.com]

"Go look at my other stuff. Thank!"

Seriously, though -- there's usually nothing wrong with it (other than it's extremely funny and distracting); the reader is invited to consult those cited works and determine their worth. And if the the field is limited, there's nothing you can do. You can't conjure up other scholars to cite.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Good points, and this author is writing in a small field.

At first, all I noticed was the repetition. I was thinking, wow, they sure like this one author... Wait a minute; that's the author! LOLOL

[chocolate-frapp.livejournal.com]

it's like Beavis and Butthead saying "I like stuff that's cool."

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

My favorite quote from them is, "These effects aren't so special."

Zen in its simplicity :D

[chocolate-frapp.livejournal.com]

one of my fave quotes of theirs was Butthead reacting to Michael Bolton trying to rock (and of course failing miserably) "You know, this guy could make any kind of music suck."

[ignazwisdom.livejournal.com]

It's common in biosciences.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

I learn so much from my f-list. Thanks!

[hibernia1.livejournal.com]

OMG, this person has no shame...

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

Other people have pointed out that in small fields you may not have much choice. Looking at the works the author cited, it still seems a bit circular, but ah well. : )

[spoggly.livejournal.com]

Common practice, especially in small fields.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

And this was a small field, so that makes sense. It was so many citations in a row that caught my eye and then the "seconded this perspective" that made me roll my eyes. So you agree with yourself? How surprising LOL

[leakey-lover.livejournal.com]

From the editorial perspective of clinical trial research: It's okay to cite yourself if necessary. What's frowned on is if it's exclusive or excessive. A matter of propriety.

Definitely when I find a great many cites in a row I cull them to only the most relevant, as we don't want to encourage the Look At Me cultural phenomenon in serious work.

It does seem odd in qualitative analysis. Odd meaning self-serving.