Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Measuring national self-referencing patterns of major science producers

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes national self-referencing patterns (i.e. the tendency of researchers to cite from the same country) of six major science producers (China, France, Germany, Japan, UK, and USA). While the results highlight a continuing decline of national references (except for China), all countries’ referencing patterns remain heavily oriented towards national papers throughout the 1980–2017 period. The results also indicate, as could be expected, that national referencing patterns are more pronounced in social sciences and humanities than in natural sciences and engineering and biomedical sciences. National references are also smaller in internationally co-authored papers than in strictly national papers. Finally, a significant part of the national referencing bias can be attributed to authors citing their previous works.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One might argue that the percentages of national self-references and reference-to-publication ratios would be different if full counting of references and papers was used instead of fractional counting. We tested both methods and, while the values are indeed very slightly different, the trends over time are essentially the same for all countries. The aim of this work is to assess the extent to which researchers of a given country rely on their national scientific production (and consequently, also on the scientific production of foreign countries). Fractional counting is better suited in this situation, since it acknowledges the fact that citing a national paper written in international collaboration comes down to relying on nationally produced knowledge but also on knowledge produced abroad.

  2. The curves for BIOMED are not shown but they are very similar to NSE.

  3. To be sure, it is possible that papers written in French and containing a French address be published in a Swiss, Belgian or Canadian social science journal. However, the number of such papers is marginal comparatively to the number of French papers published in the French social science journals that are indexed in the WoS.

  4. This list of countries includes in alphabetical order: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South-Africa, South-Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States of America.

References

  • Archambault, E., Vignola-Gagne, E., Coté, G., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2006). Benchmarking scientific output in the social sciences and humanities: The limits of existing databases. Scientometrics,68(3), 329–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baccini, A., De Nicolao, G., & Petrovich, E. (2019). Citation gaming induced by bibliometric evaluation: A country-level comparative analysis. PLoS ONE,14(9), e0221212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakare, V., & Lewison, G. (2017). Country over-citation ratios. Scientometrics,113(2), 1199–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., Adams, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2018). The negative effects of citing with a national orientation in terms of recognition: National and international citations in natural-sciences papers from Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Journal of Informetrics,12(3), 931–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, F. M. (1990). National bias: A comparison of citation practices by health professionals. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association,78(4), 376–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson Frame, J., & Carpenter, M. K. (1979). International research collaboration. Social Studies of Science,9(4), 481–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubois, M., Gingras, Y., & Rosental, C. (2016). Practices and rhetoric of the internationalization of science. Revue Française de Sociologie,57(3), 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frame, J. D., & Narin, F. (1977). The international distribution of biomedical publications. Federation Proceedings,36(7), 1790–1795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science,7(1), 113–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2002). Les formes spécifiques de l’internationalité du champ scientifique. Actes de la Recherche En Sciences Sociales,141–142, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gingras, Y. (2019). The specificity of the social sciences and humanities and its relation to research evaluation. In B. Maegaard, et al. (Eds.), Stay tuned to the future. Impact of the research infrastructures for social sciences and humanities (pp. 13–24). Firenze: Leo S. Olschki Editore.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics,51(1), 69–115.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, R. I. (1999). National bias in citations in urology journals: Parochialism or availability? British Journal of Urology International,84(6), 601–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbron, J., & Gingras, Y. (2018). The globalization of European research in the social sciences and humanities (1980–2014): A bibliometric study. In J. Heilbron, et al. (Eds.), The social and human sciences in global power relations (pp. 29–58). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics,31(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kulczycki, E., et al. (2018). Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics,116(1), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lancho-Barrantes, B. S., Guerrero-Bote, V. P., & Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z. (2012). Citation flows in the zones of influence of scientific collaborations. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,63(2), 481–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Archambault, É., & Gingras, Y. (2006a). The place of serials in referencing practices: Comparing natural science and engineering with social sciences and the humanities. Journal of the American Association of Information Science and Technology,57(8), 997–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006b). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics,68(3), 519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larivière, V., Gong, K., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2018). Citations strength begins at home. Nature,564, S70–S71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larrègue, J., Mongeon, P., Warren, J. P., Sugimoto, C. R., & Larivière, V. (2019). Reciprocity in book reviewing among American, British and Canadian academics. Canadian Journal of Sociology,44(1), 95–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Wagner, C. S. (2009). Is the United States losing ground in science? A global perspective on the world science system. Scientometrics,78(1), 23–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Zhou, P. (2005). Are the contributions of China and Korea upsetting the world system of science? Scientometrics,63(3), 617–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international collaboration. Science, Technology and Human Values,17(1), 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maisonobe, M., Grossetti, M., Milard, B., Eckert, D., & Jégou, L. (2016). L’évolution mondiale des réseaux de collaborations scientifiques entre villes: Des échelles multiples. Revue Française de Sociologie,57(3), 417–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of web of science and scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics,106(1), 213–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosbah-Natanson, S., & Gingras, Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology,62(5), 626–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. S. (1991). Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers. Scientometrics,21(3), 313–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Science Foundation. (2018). Science and engineering indicators. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/assets/nsb20181.pdf.

  • Shehatta, I., & Al-Rubaish, A. M. (2019). Impact of country self-citations on bibliometric indicators and ranking of most productive countries. Scientometrics,120(2), 775–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahamtan, I., Afshar, A. S., & Ahamdzadeh, K. (2016). Factors affecting number of citations: A comprehensive review of the literature. Scientometrics,107(3), 1195–1225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M., & Maflahi, N. (2015). Are scholarly articles disproportionately read in their own country? An analysis of mendeley readers. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology,66(6), 1124–1135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vallery-Radot, R. (1919). The life of pasteur. New York: Doubleday.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics,62(1), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, M. L., Larivière, V., & Gingras, Y. (2012). A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices. PLoS ONE,7(3), e33339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy,35(1), 83–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international collaboration: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of Science. Scientometrics,47(3), 627–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie, Montréal, Canada

    Mahdi Khelfaoui

  2. École normal supérieure Paris-Saclay, Paris, France

    Julien Larrègue

  3. Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Vincent Larivière

  4. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Canada

    Yves Gingras

Authors
  1. Mahdi Khelfaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julien Larrègue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vincent Larivière
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yves Gingras
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Khelfaoui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khelfaoui, M., Larrègue, J., Larivière, V. et al. Measuring national self-referencing patterns of major science producers. Scientometrics 123, 979–996 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03381-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03381-0

Keywords