In earlier studies by the authors, basic regularities of author self-citations have been analysed. These regularities are related to the ageing, to the relation between self-citations and foreign citations, to the interdependence of self-citations with other bibliometric indicators and to the influence of co-authorship on self-citation behaviour. Although both national and subject specific peculiarities influence the share of self-citations at the macro level, the authors came to the conclusion that - at this level of aggregation - there is practically no need for excluding self-citations. The aim of the present study is to answer the question in how far the influence of author self-citations on bibliometric meso-indicators deviates from that at the macro level, and to what extent national reference standards can be used in bibliometric meso analyses. In order to study the situation at the institutional level, a selection of twelve European universities representing different countries and different research profiles have been made. The results show a quite complex situation at the meso-level, therefore we suggest the usage of both indicators, including and excluding self-citations.

This study investigates the role of self-citation in the scientific production of Norway (1981-1996). More than 45,000 publications have been analysed. Using a three-year citation window we find that 36% of all citations represent author self-citations. However, this percentage is decreasing when citations are traced for longer periods. We find the highest share of self-citation among the least cited papers. There is a strong positive correlation between the number of self-citations and the number of authors of the publications. Still, only a minor part of the overall increase in citation rates that can be found for multi-authored papers is due to self-citations. Also, the share of self-citation shows significant variations among different scientific disciplines. The results are relevant for the discussion concerning use of citation indicators in research assessments.

This paper examines a number of the criticisms that citation analysis has been subjected to over the years. It is argued that many of these criticisms have been based on only limited examinations of data in particular contexts and it remains unclear how broadly applicable these problems are to research conducted at different levels of analysis, in specific field, and among various national data sets. Relevant evidence is provided from analysis of Australian and international data.

The citation motivations among 51 self citing authors in several natural science disciplines were investigated. Results of a survey on reasons for both self citation and citation to others show that there are very few differences in motivation, and that there are plausible intellectual grounds for those differences which are substantial. Analysis of exposure in text reveals virtually no differences between self citations and citations to others. Analysis of individual disciplines also uncover no substantive differences in either motivation or exposure in text.

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine to what extent authors of scientific articles cite their previous publications and what are the principal distinguishing features of this particular type of citation. We have analysed the bibliographies of a group of articles from the areas of plant physiology and neurobiology, and have examined the relationship of the self‐citations to some characteristics of the articles in which they occurred. We found self‐citations to be more recent and to be cited more frequently in the text of the citing articles than citations of other authors. The extent of self‐citing did not appear to be related to the number of co‐authors and to the bibliography size of the citing articles, or to their authors' productivity.