Addressing Reviewer Citation Manipulation in Scholarly Publishing
Instances of reviewer citation manipulation have been on the rise, prompting concerns within the academic community. This unethical practice involves reviewers requesting authors to cite papers authored by the reviewer themselves, thereby distorting the integrity of the peer review process.
Upon encountering such cases, journals are advised to seek guidance from organizations like COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics). COPE suggests that while it's not uncommon for reviewers to recommend citations to their own work, editors should assess the broader context of the review and the frequency of such behavior.
In instances where the reviewer's suggestions align with overlooked relevant contributions or where only one or two self-citations are made, editors may choose to pass these recommendations to the authors with appropriate framing. However, if a pattern of repeated self-citation emerges, indicating potential personal gain, editors should consider removing the reviewer from their database and notifying their institution.
Signs of malicious intent may include the use of DOIs instead of full references, as this can conceal the reviewer's self-referencing. Moreover, such behavior could compromise the anonymity of the review process, necessitating careful consideration by journal editors.
To address this issue, journals should engage with reviewers found engaging in citation manipulation, review their reviewer instructions to reinforce ethical behavior, and contemplate implementing policies where reviewers agree to be named when suggesting citations to their own work. By upholding transparency and ethical standards, scholarly publishing can maintain its credibility and integrity.
