Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science

Abstract

Many studies in political science and other disciplines show that published research by women is cited less often than research by male peers in the same discipline. While previous studies have suggested that self-citation practices may explain the gender citation gap in political science, few studies have evaluated whether men and women self-cite at different rates. Our article examines the relationship between author gender, author experience and seniority, and authors’ decisions to include self-citations using a new dataset that includes all articles published in 22 political science journals between 2007 and 2016. Contrary to our expectations, we fail to reject the null hypothesis that men are more likely cite their previous work than women, whether writing alone or co-authoring with others of the same sex. Mixed gender author teams are significantly less likely to self-cite. We also observe lower rates of self-citation in general field journals and Comparative/International Relations subfield journals. The results imply that the relationship between gender and self-citation depends on several factors such as collaboration and the typical seniority and experience of authors on the team.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    In political science, see Maliniak et al (2013), Mitchell et al (2013), Roberts et al (2018), Dion et al (2018); in other disciplines, see Ferber (1988). Håkanson (2005), Leahey et al (2008), Aksnes et al (2011), Ferber and Brun (2011), Cameron et al (2016), and Beaudry and Lariviere (Beaudry and Larivière 2016).

  2. 2.

    Interestingly, King et al’s (2017: 15) network analysis of 1.5 million JSTOR articles finds no significant correlation between the average number of self-citations and the percentage of male authors in a field.

  3. 3.

    This fits with a broader pattern of women being “punished” for self-promoting their citations (King et al 2018).

  4. 4.

    Our paper focuses on political science, but there are some differences established across disciplines for self-citations, such as natural science papers having a higher average number of self-citations (Snyder and Bonzi 1998; Hyland 2003a, b).

  5. 5.

    Women also tend to work more in interdisciplinary areas which can increase citations but depress the total number of publications, reducing the long run ability to accrue citations (Leahey et al 2017).

  6. 6.

    However, self-citations as a percentage of total citations are declining in many disciplines (Hyland and Jiang 2018). Given that our sample focuses on articles published in more recent years than King et al (2017), it is not surprising that the rate of self-citation in political science is lower in our study.

  7. 7.

    Teele and Thelen (2017) do not exclude ambiguous probabilities. Also, genderize.io fails to generate a prediction for some names for which it lacks sufficient information to make a reliable prediction, including many East and Southeast Asian given names. Yet handing coding of missing values does not alter results for gender citation gaps in political science (Dion et al 2018).

  8. 8.

    Only 68 (0.78%) articles have more than five authors, and the results do not change if we use the total number of authors.

  9. 9.

    While narrower subfields or topics exist, these are the largest fields within political science around which teaching and research activities are often organized. See Table 1 for a list of which journals are coded into which categories.

  10. 10.

    37.5% of the members of the American Political Science Association are women, although women’s representation in political science journals is much lower than expected (compared with female membership in sections who sponsor journals) for most journals affiliated with the organization (Dion and Mitchell2020).

  11. 11.

    Predicted probabilities with larger confidence intervals (e.g., solo female authors or non-alphabetical order all female teams) reflect smaller numbers of authors with these characteristics in the dataset.

  12. 12.

    Self-citation rates are generally lower in humanities fields compared with science fields. This is because these fields often have expectations for scholars to publish as “lone wolves” much like junior faculty in political science (Snyder and Bonzi 1998).

  13. 13.

    Using the testparm command (null hypothesis is base and interaction terms all simultaneously = 0) in STATA, we find that the variables are jointly significant for each model that includes interaction terms (Model 2: 2 = 471.12 with 9 degrees of freedom and p < 0.0001; Model 3: 2 = 312.85 with 9 degrees of freedom and p <0.0001).

  14. 14.

    We thank a reviewer for this suggestion. These alternate models are presented in the online appendix. For bootstrapped standard errors in the logit and event count models, we use the vce (bootstrap) option clustered by journal in STATA with 300 replications. For jackknife standard errors, we use the vce (jackknife) option clustered by journal.

  15. 15.

    Sometimes, when teams have a series of papers, they alternate alphabetical and reverse alphabetical or some other rotation of names, even when authorship is equal. While sometimes such decisions are noted in the paper, they are often left unstated.

  16. 16.

    This helps us understand why Maliniak et al (2013) found different results from ours, namely that women self-cite less often. Their sample contains a larger number of IR journals relative to the total sample than ours.

References

  1. Aksnes, D. W. (2003). A macro study of self-citation. Scientometrics, 56(2), 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021919228368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aksnes, D. W., Rorstad, K., Piro, F., & Sivertsen, G. (2011). Are female researchers less cited? A large-scale study of Norwegian scientists. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(4), 628–636. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beaudry, C., & Larivière, V. (2016). Which gender gap? Factors affecting researchers’ scientific impact in science and medicine. Research Policy, 45(9), 1790–1817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cameron, E. Z., White, A. M., & Gray, M. E. (2016). Solving the Productivity and Impact Puzzle: Do Men Outperform Women, or are Metrics Biased? BioScience, 66(3), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chamberlain, S., Boettiger, C., Hart, T., & Ram, K. (2017). rcrossref: Client for Various “CrossRef” “APIs”. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rcrossref/index.html. Accessed 4 December 2017

  6. Crossref. 2018. Crossref REST API. https://api.crossref.org/

  7. Deschacht, N., & Maes, B. (2017). Cross-cultural differences in self-promotion: A study of self-citations in management journals. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 90(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Dion, M., & Mitchell, S. M. (2020). How many citations to women in “Enough”? Estimates of gender representation in political science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(1), 107–113. doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519001173.

  9. Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018). Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields. Political Analysis, 26(3), 312–327. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferber, M. A. (1988). Citations and Networking. Gender & Society, 2(1), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124388002001006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferber, M. A., & Brün, M. (2011). The Gender Gap in Citations: Does It Persist? Feminist Economics, 17(1), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545701.2010.541857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fowler, J. H., & Aksnes, D. W. (2007). Does self-citation pay? Scientometrics, 72(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1777-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. genderize. (2018). genderize. https://genderize.io/.

  14. Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Gender differences in synchronous and diachronous self-citations. In STI conference, 8. Valencia.

  15. Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., Schubert, A. (2006). A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy Scientometrics, 67(2), 263-–77.

  16. Google Books. (2018). Google Books API. https://developers.google.com/books/

  17. Håkanson, M. (2005). The Impact of Gender on Citations: An Analysis of College & Research Libraries, Journal of Academic Librarianship, and Library Quarterly | Håkanson | College & Research Libraries. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.66.4.312

  18. Hesli, V. L., & Lee, J. M. (2011). Faculty Research Productivity: Why Do Some of Our Colleagues Publish More than Others? PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(2), 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096511000242

  19. Hutson, S. R. (2006). Self-Citation in Archaeology: Age, Gender, Prestige, and the Self. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 13(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-006-9001-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hyland, K. (2003a). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hyland, K. (2003b). Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(3), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). Changing patterns of self-citation: cumulative inquiry or self-promotion? Text & Talk, 38(3), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Key, E.M., & Jane Lawrence Sumner. 2019. “You Research Like a Girl: Gendered Research Agendas and Their Implications.” PS: Political Science & Politics 52 (4): 663–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519000945.

  24. King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D. (2017). Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time. Socius, 3, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117738903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Larivière, V., & Costas, R. (2016). How Many Is Too Many? On the Relationship between Research Productivity and Impact. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0162709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0162709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Leahey, E. (2008). Methodological Memes and Mores: Toward a Sociology of Social Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 34(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Leahey, E., Beckman, C. M., & Stanko, T. L. (2017). Prominent but Less Productive: The Impact of Interdisciplinarity on Scientists’ Research*. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(1), 105–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The Gender Citation Gap in International Relations. International Organization, 67(04), 889–922. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818313000209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mishra, S., Fegley, B. D., Diesner, J., & Torvik, V. I. (2018). Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender. PLoS ONE, 13(9), e0195773. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mitchell, S. M., Lange, S., & Brus, H. (2013). Gendered Citation Patterns in International Relations Journals. International Studies Perspectives, 14(4), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/insp.12026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nielsen, M. W. (2016). Gender inequality and research performance: Moving beyond individual-meritocratic explanations of academic advancement. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 2044–2060. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1007945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ooms, J., Lang, D. T., & Hilaiel, L. (2017). jsonlite: A Robust, High Performance JSON Parser and Generator for R. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/jsonlite/index.html. Accessed 4 December 2017

  33. Snyder, H., & Bonzi, S. (1998). Patterns of self-citation across disciplines (1980–1989). Journal of Information Science, 24(6), 431–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/016555159802400606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Teele, D. L., & Thelen, K. (2017). Gender in the Journals: Publication Patterns in Political Science. PS: Political Science &amp; Politics, 50(2), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1049096516002985

  35. Wais, K., VanHoudnos, N., & Ramey, J. (2016). genderizeR: Gender Prediction Based on First Names. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/genderizeR/index.html. Accessed 4 December 2017.

  36. Williams, H., Bates, S., Jenkins, L., Luke, D., & Rogers, K. (2015). Gender and Journal Authorship: An Assessment of Articles Published by Women in Three Top British Political Science and International Relations Journals. European Political Science, 14(2), 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle L. Dion.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 8, 9, 10.

Table 8 Measures of self-citations by journal (2007-2016)
Table 9 Other article characteristics by journal (2007-2016)
Table 10 Models with alternative calculations of standard errors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dion, M.L., Mitchell, S.M. & Sumner, J.L. Gender, seniority, and self-citation practices in political science. Scientometrics 125, 1–28 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03615-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Citations
  • Gender
  • Political science
  • Sociology of science

Mathematical Subject Classification

  • 91C99
  • 91F10
  • 91D99

JEL Classification

  • A11
  • A14
  • B54
  • J44