Just finished checking another #Sternberg article for self-plagiarism. It's clean. But of the 28 references, 27 are his own work. That's 96.4%! Why is this acceptable? #psychology #SternbergGate
Should add it to the collection. I've entered the ones @sTeamTraen reportedhttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18BZkwHx0SU1guQSz5rHrjaEN1fPIKm-w4w54BuZZkvA/edit#gid=0 …
-
-
I don't think excessive self-citation counts as a QRP. There's no ethics code that says it's unacceptable. Yes, it's shady when you're pimping your citation count. But it's not an obvious ethical breach.
-
I consider it a QRP. This behavior games the system of scientific reputation for self-gain to the detriment of other researchers. Many researchers do this to some degree (perhaps?), but Sternberg does it to ridiculous levels.
-
I agree that it distorts the literature, but I disagree with ex post facto rules. Yes, he should be shamed into self-citing less. But it's not a QRP the way p-hacking is, where it can change the results of a study completely.
-
Maybe we need QAP (Academic) or QPP (Publishing). Both self-citation and duplicate publication have very little to do with actual research (unless data are being recycled across studies).
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.