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 accessPublished version of a preprint
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“For example, female academics tend to use more modest language in presenting their work in paper abstracts compared to men25,28, engage less in self-citation behavior39 and are less likely to promote their papers on social media40.”
From Scientific publications that use promotional language in the abstract receive more citations and public attention (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
The Matthew Effect in Science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered.
Merton, R. K. (1968) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56 · Cited by 6,720
The structure of scientific collaboration networks
Newman, M. E. J. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.404 · Cited by 4,550
Price, D. J. D. S. (1965) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.149.3683.510 · Cited by 3,205
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · Cited by 3,150
Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2013
National Science Foundation (2013) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e558442013-001 · Cited by 2,494
Community detection algorithms: A comparative analysis
Lancichinetti, A., & Fortunato, S. (2009) · Physical Review E · doi:10.1103/physreve.80.056117 · Cited by 2,181
A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes
Price, D. J. D. S. (1976) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science · doi:10.1002/asi.4630270505 · Cited by 2,013
Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations
Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002) · Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/s0378-4371(02)00736-7 · Cited by 1,972
Ridgeway, C. L. (2011) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755776.001.0001 · Cited by 1,527
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Babcock Linda, 2007, Women Don’t Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation—and Positive Strategies for Change
- Babcock Linda, 2003, Harvard Business Review
- Cole Jonathan R., 1991, The Outer Circle: Women in the Scientific Community, 277
- Hill Catherine, 2010, Why So Few? Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
- Kanter Rosabeth Moss, 1993, Men and Women of the Corporation
- 10.2307/2579971 · DOI
- 10.1177/000312240306800105 · DOI
- Weisshaar Kate, Social Forces
- Wesley-Smith Ian, 2016, Presented at WSDM Conference: Entity Ranking Challenge Workshop
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x · Cited by 899
The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists
Dworkin, J. D., Linn, K. A., Teich, E. G., Zurn, P., Shinohara, R. T., & Bassett, D. S. (2020) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-020-0658-y · Cited by 543
Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields
Dion, M. L., Sumner, J. L., & Mitchell, S. M. (2018) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2018.12 · Cited by 523
Swedberg, R. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108762519.002 · Cited by 471
Gender bias in academia: A lifetime problem that needs solutions
Llorens, A., Tzovara, A., Bellier, L., Bhaya-Grossman, I., Bidet‐Caulet, A., Chang, W. K., Cross, Z. R., Dominguez-Faus, R., Flinker, A., Fonken, Y. M., et al. (2021) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2021.06.002 · Cited by 427
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.
- Venue
- Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-01-01
- Volume
- 3
- ISSN
- 2378-0231 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
