Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Learned Publishingarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Learned Publishing
Article
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Learned Publishing
Article . 2010 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
DBLP
Article . 2023
Data sources: DBLP
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Self‐citation in Chinese biomedical journals

Authors: Xue-Li Liu; Mei-Ying Wang;

Self‐citation in Chinese biomedical journals

Abstract

ABSTRACTWe investigated the self‐citation rates of 884 Chinese biomedical journals, including 185 general medicine journals, 96 preventive medicine journals, 103 Chinese traditional medicine journals, 66 basic medicine journals, 370 clinical medicine journals, and 64 pharmaceutical journals. The average self‐citation rates of these journals for the years 2005–2007 were 0.113 ± 0.124, 0.099 ± 0.098 and 0.092 ± 0.089, respectively, i.e. a downward trend year by year. The upper limits of normal values of self‐citation rates for the same period were 0.316, 0.260 and 0.238, respectively. A significant difference was found in self‐citation rate between biomedical journals of different subjects. 52 Chinese biomedical journals had no self‐citation in 2007. The total citation frequency and impact factor of these 52 biomedical journals were 263 and 0.206, respectively, which were very much lower than the average levels of all Chinese biomedical journals in 2007. A self‐citation rate higher than the upper limit was considered as excessive self‐citation: 62 (7.01%), 68 (7.69%) and 66 (7.47%) biomedical journals showed excessive self‐citation in the years 2005–2007, respectively. However, a certain amount of self‐citation is reasonable and necessary.

Related Organizations
  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    7
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
7
Average
Top 10%
Top 10%
bronze