is the prohibition of The Eigenlobs and mutual highly commendable among friends a fundamental social achievement. It educates the interested parties to comply with the conditions of larger groups. So his self-love may enter into the service of social goals. Also, the acquisition of scientific reputation is subject to the prohibited such self-satisfaction. So the scientists may not explain his articles easy, even for ready-to-print, he has left the choice of a professional journal.
Similarly, is taken from him the judgment about the quality of its book publications of others, and if he is applying for advertised positions, then it is the matter of an appeal Commission, to assess his professional and personal Suitability for the Position. On all these occasions he has to act humble, because everything else, such as his appraiser, your own judgment would pre-empt. He must therefore acknowledge its value, but not the awareness of its value. And when it occurs, nevertheless, he would have to an offer you can’t refuse, then he will forfeit the rejection that is why.
self-quotes Are inevitable?
In this procedure of the forbidden Eigenlobs however, there is a gap, and are self-citations. The ban cannot go so far that any mention of one’s own Scriptures is forbidden. It is rather in the nature of things that the specialists of a particular topic, if you want to cite the relevant literature, to encounter their own publications, and, of course, you must declare them then. To refrain from self-praise can only mean that you are limited to the number of self-citations to the Inevitable, and that you leave it in the note to the publication, to boast without you as a scientific feat.
it Should be necessary to characterize the own performance, also in terms of content, then you refer to it as an attempt to, and should there be colleagues who consider him to be a failure, then you would mention on this occasion also. Self-praise by self-citations is easy to recognize. This, however, only if you read the quote really. What can happen if the quotes from the computers of large databases can be easily counted only, shows a recently published study.
in Most cases, by themselves
The Name of sundara Pandian Vaidyanathan appears in today’s charts of most-cited scientists at the top. But this is not a sign that the publications of this Indian computer scientist would have a significant impact on the research in his field. Not less than 94 per cent of these mentions come from him or by one of its co-authors. This is evident from the yield of a study conducted by the Stanford faculty, health researchers, John Ioannidis – in Germany also as a critic of the scientific basis of the Anti-Corona-policy is known. Under the 100,000 researchers of very different disciplines, the record of his teams of researchers captured, there were at least 250, which had purchased more than half of the applicable quotes in the same way as that man is from India, which were awarded in his home country, by the way, prizes for scientific excellence, received from the Minister’s hand.
The average percentage of self-citations was by the way at just 12.5 percent. In the meantime, there are databases such as Scopus or Web of Science, in which you can check how often a scientist is cited yourself, and Ioannidis advises to consult you. In the case of an “own contribution” of more than 25 percent, his rule of thumb, you should still take a closer look before placing a chair or a price gives. Critics of this recommendation, interviewed by the journal “Nature”, have formulated two arguments against it. The one is, that there can be no General measure of permissible self-citations. The share of nature in the case of young and unknown authors to be higher than in the case of the older and well-known, and in addition, there are also areas of expertise, their publications, hundreds of authors were involved, and the proportion spent on to quote the co-authors is necessarily higher than in other disciplines. Such defects could be correct after all, by the addition of information on the subject – or age-typical average value.