For example, if a researcher goes through the hurdle of seeking truly objective peer-review, then there should be no problem with that same researcher using the results of that previous publication as a premise for the next step in that line of research, so of course the researcher would need to self-cite that study as the “prior art”.
On the other hand, when “researchers” publish in publications with no, or a “flimsy”, peer review process, then those publications have relatively less credibility (compared to studies that underwent strong peer review) regardless of who cites them. Sometimes it’s prudent to steer clear of publications that that were approved by “peer reviewers” who were merely appointed or suggested by the authors, themselves. The clear possibility of bias (i.e., friendly support) of those reviewers compromises the credibility of such a review process. But once the study has passed objective peer review, it shouldn’t matter who cites it. In fact, most studies are cited most often by the authors themselves in their own books, chapters, articles, lectures, etc., as part of the process of presenting how their own research fits into the context of prior research.
Regarding patents and clinical trials, the peer review is generally very strong, and such a rite of passage renders the credibility of such research and development relatively intact. It’s rare and extremely difficult for inventors to be issued a (US) patent by feigning whether an invention actually works, or for pharma companies to receive FDA clearance by feigning clinical results, including tox studies. Sure some shamming sneaks through, but that has nothing to do with who cites the prior publications on such research.
Researchers bear the responsibility to assess the credibility of publications based on the quality of the peer review process to which those publications have been subjected.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23-Sep-19 13:59 by Nth.
|Sighting Self-citing Scientists||1901||Dr. Troglodyte||21-Aug-19 14:14|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||147||D-Archer||21-Aug-19 15:59|
|A New Drug||146||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 08:55|
|Re: exaggerated||180||Lost_In_Place||22-Aug-19 20:42|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||105||Nth||23-Sep-19 13:52|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||112||Lost_In_Place||24-Sep-19 06:20|
|Re: Sighting Self-citing Scientists||157||Nth||29-Sep-19 17:30|