Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Publishing

Halt self-citation in impact measures

Nature volume 505, page 160 (2014)Cite this article

Subjects

We can improve the gender differences in science publishing and research (see V. Larivière et al. Nature 504, 211–213; 2013) by making measurements of scientific output and impact fairer.

For example, time spent on active research should be incorporated into assessments of research productivity. This would provide a fairer comparison for researchers who take parental leave or who have other caring duties or high teaching loads, and would reduce the pressure on those scientists.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Elissa Z. Cameron & Amy M. Edwards

  2. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Davis, California, USA

    Angela M. White

Authors
  1. Elissa Z. Cameron
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy M. Edwards
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela M. White
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elissa Z. Cameron.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cameron, E., Edwards, A. & White, A. Halt self-citation in impact measures. Nature 505, 160 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/505160b

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/505160b

Comments

Commenting on this article is now closed.

  1. Kenneth Pimple

    Two good suggestions.

  2. Tani Davis

    Strange how the authors support one of their two points (an alleged male bias in self-citation) by self-citation, and that reference doesn't actually support the point. All I can see there is a weak reference to another paper "and perhaps moderate sexual dimorphism in self-citation rates [10]". That reference in turn merely states (at least in the abstract) that "Self-citation correlates weakly with the gender of the citing author".

    These ideas for improving citation metrics are not bad, but they are also not new, and not as simple to address as sometimes thought. Wrapping them in a gender-eqality flag with dubious factual support is not particularly helpful. On the other hand, the authors now have got themselves a Nature publication and another citation for their other work.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing