A fourth category of sexist practices, which might be collected under the heading of ¡°vanity,¡± may be ridiculous, but it is no less pernicious. Self-citation is an excellent illustration of this problem. A male scholar is nearly twice as likely to cite his previous work than a female peer is to cite her own. Self-citation builds up the base of a paper¡¯s citation count, leading other scholars to cite that paper at a rate of about four new citations for every self-citation...
As men publish more often than women, the self-citation gap quickly erodes into a canyon separating men and women in terms of their overall citations. The gulf between the genders in their output of publications varies by discipline, ranging from 20 to 30 percent; hypothetically, then, this means that if a man writes eight papers, cites himself 1.7 times per paper, collects citations from others at the expected rate of four to every one of his self-citations, he will end up with sixty-eight citations. His female peer, however, writes only six papers (assuming a 25 percent gap), each with one self-citation, and is cited by others at the same rate, leaving her with only thirty.
« Older Is it ¡°lead¡± or ¡°lede¡±? | Trump¡¯s plan to let employers discriminate against... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by 1adam12 at 7:49 AM on August 18, 2019 [2 favorites]