Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The practice of self-citations: a longitudinal study

Digital Libraries · Submitted 14 Mar 2019

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim However, we depicted a stronger causal relation between such increment and the rules introduced by the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation in 10 out of 24 disciplines analysed.

how it is stated · asserted 0.99 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1903.06142 (version 3)
Pith IDQ3CDFMFR, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAldo Gangemi, Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese, Francesco Poggi, Paolo Ciancarini, Silvio Peroni, Valentina Presutti. "The practice of self-citations: a longitudinal study." arXiv:1903.06142 (2019). https://pith.science/paper/Q3CDFMFR
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,129 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.36 · human participants 0.45 · controlled comparison 0.24 · randomized assignment 0.02 · states quantitative result 0.95 · compares with prior results 0.29 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v3. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

In this article, we discuss the outcomes of an experiment where we analysed whether and to what extent the introduction, in 2012, of the new research assessment exercise in Italy (a.k.a. Italian Scientific Habilitation) affected self-citation behaviours in the Italian research community. The Italian Scientific Habilitation attests to the scientific maturity of researchers and in Italy, as in many other countries, is a requirement for accessing to a professorship. To this end, we obtained from ScienceDirect 35,673 articles published from 1957 and 2016 by the participants to the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation, that resulted in the extraction of 1,379,050 citations retrieved through Semantic Publishing technologies. Our analysis showed an overall increment in author self-citations (i.e. where the citing article and the cited article share at least one author) in several of the 24 academic disciplines considered. However, we depicted a stronger causal relation between such increment and the rules introduced by the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation in 10 out of 24 disciplines analysed.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 In this article, we discuss the outcomes of an experiment where we analysed whether and to what extent the introduction, in 2012, of the new research assessment exercise in Italy (a.k.a. contribution 0.97 0.75 0.02 unclear 0.84
s1 Italian Scientific Habilitation) affected self-citation behaviours in the Italian research community. contribution 0.93 0.26 0.05 unclear 0.53
s2 The Italian Scientific Habilitation attests to the scientific maturity of researchers and in Italy, as in many other countries, is a requirement for accessing to a professorship. background 1.00 0.04 0.02 asserted 1.00
s3 To this end, we obtained from ScienceDirect 35,673 articles published from 1957 and 2016 by the participants to the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation, that resulted in the extraction of 1,379,050 citations retrieved through Semantic Publishing technologies. method 1.00 0.95 0.02 asserted 0.99
s4 Our analysis showed an overall increment in author self-citations (i.e. where the citing article and the cited article share at least one author) in several of the 24 academic disciplines considered. result 1.00 0.97 0.49 asserted 1.00
s5 However, we depicted a stronger causal relation between such increment and the rules introduced by the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation in 10 out of 24 disciplines analysed. result 0.74 0.95 0.46 asserted 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: empirical study 1.00 · evidence from analysis of existing data 0.98.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v3
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

In this article, we discuss the outcomes of an experiment where we analysed whether and to what extent the introduction, in 2012, of the new research assessment exercise in Italy (a.k.a. Italian Scientific Habilitation) affected self-citation behaviours in the Italian research community. The Italian Scientific Habilitation attests to the scientific maturity of researchers and in Italy, as in many other countries, is a requirement for accessing to a professorship. To this end, we obtained from ScienceDirect 35,673 articles published from 1957 and 2016 by the participants to the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation, that resulted in the extraction of 1,379,050 citations retrieved through Semantic Publishing technologies. Our analysis showed an overall increment in author self-citations (i.e. where the citing article and the cited article share at least one author) in several of the 24 academic disciplines considered. However, we depicted a stronger causal relation between such increment and the rules introduced by the 2012 Italian Scientific Habilitation in 10 out of 24 disciplines analysed.

Human review

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.