Preprint: Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing
A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment
Conflict of Interest in Academic Publishing: A Question of Accountability in the Pursuit of Truth
Comment on Springer's New Screening Tool for AI Tortured Phrases
Preprint
Liu, Yue, Self-Citation Versus External Citation in Academic Publishing: A Critical Analysis of Citation Reliability, Publication Biases, And Scientific Quality Assessment (August 14, 2025). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5392646 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5392646
Excerpts
This paper examines the complex relationship between self-citation and external citation in academic publishing, with particular attention to their reliability as indicators of scientific quality. Through analysis of recent citation patterns, publication biases, and case studies in electromagnetic wave absorption research, we demonstrate that traditional assumptions about citation value are fundamentally flawed. While external citations are conventionally viewed as more valuable than self-citations, our analysis reveals that external citations can perpetuate scientific errors when authors uncritically cite high-impact journal publications without proper evaluation. Conversely, self-citations may represent genuine scientific rigor when authors acknowledge their own correction of established errors. The paper presents evidence that high-impact journals and peer-review processes do not guarantee scientific validity, and proposes reforms to citation practices, peer review, and scientific publishing to better serve the advancement of knowledge.
The academic publishing ecosystem fundamentally relies on citation practices to establish credibility, track knowledge development, and measure scientific impact. Traditional academic wisdom holds that external citations—references by other researchers—carry greater weight than self-citations, based on the assumption that independent validation demonstrates broader acceptance and impact. However, this conventional understanding fails to account for systematic biases in citation behavior and the possibility that external citations may perpetuate scientific errors rather than validate scientific truth.
Recent developments in electromagnetic wave absorption research provide a compelling case study that challenges these assumptions. A highly cited paper published in Carbon (2024) by Hou et al. has received 137 external citations despite containing fundamental scientific errors that can be identified using undergraduate-level physics. Meanwhile, correction papers identifying these errors remain largely uncited except by their own authors, illustrating a paradox where erroneous high-impact publications receive widespread external citation while scientifically rigorous corrections are relegated to self-citation.
This paper critically examines the reliability of citation metrics as indicators of scientific quality, analyzes the biases inherent in current citation practices, and evaluates whether high-impact SCI journals deserve preferential citation treatment over preprints and other publications.
Citation bias strongly favors studies with positive or statistically significant results over those with negative or null findings. This selective citation practice distorts the scientific literature by creating an artificial consensus around positive outcomes while marginalizing contradictory evidence. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews based on such biased citation patterns may reach incorrect conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions or the validity of theories.
The preferential citation of high-impact journal articles creates a circular system where journal prestige drives citation behavior rather than scientific quality. Authors may cite papers from prestigious journals without carefully evaluating their content, contributing to the propagation of errors when high-impact publications contain fundamental mistakes.
The paper "A perspective on impedance matching and resonance absorption mechanism for electromagnetic wave absorbing" published in Carbon (2024) by Hou et al. provides a striking example of how external citations can fail as quality indicators. Despite containing fundamental theoretical errors in electromagnetic wave absorption theory, the paper has accumulated 137 citations since February 2024.
The errors in this paper are not subtle theoretical disagreements but basic violations of physical principles that can be identified using undergraduate-level electromagnetic theory. The wave mechanics theory developed by Liu et al. has systematically demonstrated that the impedance matching theory promoted by Hou et al. contains logical contradictions and violates energy conservation principles.
Despite the availability of detailed corrections published in peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers, the erroneous Hou paper continues to receive widespread external citation. Authors citing this work appear to rely on journal prestige and peer-review status rather than evaluating the scientific content.
The correction of these errors by Liu et al. presents an inverse citation pattern. Their comprehensive analyses, published across multiple venues including peer-reviewed journals and preprint servers, receive primarily self-citations despite providing rigorous scientific corrections.
Correction papers face systematic bias in peer review, with reviewers often rejecting scientifically sound critiques based on preference for established paradigms rather than scientific merit.
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges, 2025, arXiv:2508.06522v2, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
Journals may be reluctant to publish papers that challenge previously published work, particularly when the original work appeared in high-impact venues
Rethinking “Balanced View” in Scientific Controversies
Researchers may avoid citing correction papers to maintain relationships with the scientific establishment or to avoid controversy in their own work.
Recent studies demonstrate that preprints can provide reliable scientific information with high concordance rates with subsequently published journal articles.
Reviewers may lack the specialized knowledge necessary to identify errors in highly technical work.
Reviewers may have professional relationships or competitive interests that bias their evaluations.
Self-citation serves legitimate scientific purposes that extend beyond self-promotion. When researchers build upon their previous work, reference their own methodological developments, or acknowledge their own corrections of scientific errors, self-citation becomes not only appropriate but necessary for scientific integrity.
Serial research that builds systematically on previous findings requires self-citation to maintain intellectual coherence.
When researchers identify and correct errors in established theories, they may be the only ones willing to cite these corrections until broader acceptance develops.
The commonly cited "20% rule" suggesting that self-citation rates above 20% are problematic fails to account for the legitimate scientific circumstances that may require higher self-citation rates.
Publication Rules and Hidden Biases
Academic publishing operates according to implicit rules that prioritize certain types of publications:
Recency Bias:
Journal Prestige Bias:
Peer Review Preference: The assumption that peer-reviewed work is inherently superior to preprints or other forms of scientific communication may cause valuable insights to be ignored.
Citation Coercion:
A significant problem in current citation practices is the tendency for authors to cite papers they have not thoroughly read or understood. This "citation recycling" perpetuates errors by creating citation chains based on titles, abstracts, or secondary sources rather than careful evaluation of primary research.
The traditional hierarchy that values external citations over self-citations represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific knowledge develops and how errors propagate through academic literature. Our analysis demonstrates that external citations can perpetuate scientific errors when authors uncritically cite high-impact publications, while self-citations may represent genuine scientific rigor when authors acknowledge their own corrections of established mistakes.
The case study of electromagnetic wave absorption research illustrates how a fundamentally flawed paper in a high-impact journal can accumulate numerous external citations while scientifically rigorous corrections remain largely uncited. This pattern reveals systemic problems in academic publishing that go beyond individual citation behavior to encompass peer review bias, publication hierarchies, and the conservative nature of scientific paradigm change.
Yue Liu，Ying Liu，Michael G. B Drew，Citation Issues in Wave Mechanics Theory of Microwave Absorption: A Comprehensive Analysis with Theoretical Foundations and Peer Review Challenges, 2025, arXiv:2508.06522v2, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2508.06522
High-impact SCI journals do not automatically deserve preferential citation treatment over preprints or other forms of scientific communication. Quality assessment must be based on content evaluation rather than publication venue prestige. The scientific community needs comprehensive reforms in citation practices, peer review processes, and institutional incentives to better serve the advancement of knowledge rather than the perpetuation of established errors.
True scientific progress requires intellectual courage to challenge established theories when evidence warrants such challenges. Self-citation becomes not a weakness but a necessity when researchers must acknowledge their own role in correcting scientific errors that others are reluctant to address. Only by reforming our understanding of citation value and scientific quality assessment can the academic community create systems that reliably promote scientific truth over scientific convention.
Comment on Springer's New Screening Tool for AI Tortured Phrases
The wave mechanics theory of electromagnetic absorption, despite facing citation neglect and peer review bias, demonstrates that scientific validity cannot be measured by external citation counts alone. When authors must cite their own corrections because others are unwilling to engage with challenging new ideas, the resulting self-citation pattern reflects not poor scientific practice but the conservative nature of scientific paradigm change. The ultimate measure of scientific value must be logical consistency, empirical adequacy, and theoretical coherence—not citation counts or journal impact factors.