CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 276scientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and BibliometricsWeb visibility and informetrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Men Set Their Own Cites High: Gender and Self-citation across Fields and over Time

Open access
King, Molly M., Bergstrom, Carl T., Correll, Shelley J., Jacquet, Jennifer, West, Jevin D.·2017·Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
DOI 10.1177/2378023117738903

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

How common is self-citation in scholarly publication, and does the practice vary by gender? Using novel methods and a data set of 1.5 million research papers in the scholarly database JSTOR published between 1779 and 2011, the authors find that nearly 10 percent of references are self-citations by a paper’s authors. The findings also show that between 1779 and 2011, men cited their own papers 56 percent more than did women. In the last two decades of data, men self-cited 70 percent more than women. Women are also more than 10 percentage points more likely than men to not cite their own previous work at all. While these patterns could result from differences in the number of papers that men and women authors have published rather than gender-specific patterns of self-citation behavior, this gender gap in self-citation rates has remained stable over the last 50 years, despite increased representation of women in academia. The authors break down self-citation patterns by academic field and number of authors and comment on potential mechanisms behind these observations. These findings have important implications for scholarly visibility and cumulative advantage in academic careers.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2378023117738903

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Babcock Linda, 2007, Women Don’t Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation—and Positive Strategies for Change
  2. Babcock Linda, 2003, Harvard Business Review
  3. Cole Jonathan R., 1991, The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, 277
  4. Hill Catherine, 2010, Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
  5. Kanter Rosabeth Moss, 1993, Men and Women of the Corporation
  6. 10.2307/2579971 · DOI
  7. 10.1177/000312240306800105 · DOI
  8. Weisshaar Kate, Social Forces
  9. Wesley-Smith Ian, 2016, Presented at WSDM Conference: Entity Ranking Challenge Workshop

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 276

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
King, M. M., Bergstrom, C. T., Correll, S. J., Jacquet, J., & West, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • New York University (US)
Corresponding author
King, Molly M.
ORCID
Venue
Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
3
ISSN
2378-0231 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/2378023117738903
OpenAlex
W2466144917
Cited by
275
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8
FWCI
25.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (Santa Clara University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Web visibility and informetrics
Keywords
self-citation, gender gap, women in academia, Matthew effect, research visibility, academic careers, gender and science, field of study, number of authors, JSTOR

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review