Recommending your own citations when reviewing

May 05 2015 Published by under Uncategorized

When you get a paper to review, do you ever suggest your own work? Your colleagues?

How close does the paper under review need to be to your work to do this? What if they are your most evil rival?

Obviously this is of concern. Particularly given that I'm talking with PD's tomorrow about this paper.

8 responses so far

  • crystaldoc says:

    Yes I have done this, but only when my work is pretty closely related and extremely relevant. And then, I would not specifically suggest that my work should be *cited*, but rather allude to my work in making a point about something that the authors have overlooked or not adequately considered in their interpretation or discussion ... something like that. I sometimes have mentioned one very relevant paper from my group along with one or two others from another group, to help maintain anonymity. If my issue with the manuscript is that they have overlooked not just my work but an entire field of prior work, then I will not generally call out one of my own papers but just state that the manuscript has not adequately credited prior work in the field, and leave it to the authors to figure out what they ought to cite. Whether or not I identify one of my own papers as relevant to the manuscript under review also depends on how critical the tome of my review-- if highly critical, I might not want to risk the authors thinking it is me and so avoid mentioning my work.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Scholarship has absolutely gone to shit these days. It's ridiculous. So I find myself pointing out citation failures on an increasingly frequent basis. If it includes my own pubs too, so what? What difference does that make?

  • Odyssey says:

    DM is becoming a curmudgeon in his dotage. But he's right in this case. I'm finding more and more of the papers I review fail to adequately cite the existing literature. Do I recommend they cite my work? Absolutely. If it's appropriate.

  • thorazine says:

    I have demanded that my own work be cited, but only in cases where the authors are clearly and conspicuously ignoring a large body of work, directly relevant to their own, with the intent of inflating their own apparent originality. In these cases, I recommend that they read and cite many papers, often including papers from my own lab.

  • pyrope says:

    Only in cases where it is directly relevant, but I'm not afraid to make those suggestions - presumably you're reviewing the work because you're an expert in that field. If so, then your (and any) work with direct relevance should be cited. Also, if you aren't going to stand up for your own work, who will?

  • […] Scholarship has absolutely gone to shit these days. It's ridiculous. So I find myself pointing out citation failures on an increasingly frequent basis. If it includes my own pubs too, so what? What difference does that make? Reply […]

  • jmz4gtu says:

    When I get asked to review, that's usually what a lot of my comments are e.g. "X et. al showed this, you should cite them and examine why your findings are inconsistent." Or "Y et al. has demonstrated this previously, you should cite their work."
    So no, I don't think its conspicuous or weird to ask them to cite things, and as DM says, if it's your own stuff, why should that matter?

  • Pinko Punko says:

    I definitely point it out when they cite us but get it wrong what we say- but I do point out stuff that they have missed if it relates to our work or work in the field.

Leave a Reply