Citation Manipulation Policy

1. Purpose of this Policy

Citations are a core part of scholarly communication. They acknowledge prior work, situate research in its academic context, and help readers trace evidence, methods, and arguments. SIARE requires that citation practices remain honest, relevant, proportionate, and academically defensible.

This policy is intended to prevent citation abuse, protect editorial independence, and preserve trust in the scholarly record.

2. Scope of Application

This policy applies to citation-related conduct across the full publication workflow, including:

• Manuscript preparation by authors
• Reviewer comments and revision requests
• Editorial decision letters and revision guidance
• Conference and proceedings-level review processes
• Reference-list development, citation suggestions, and post-publication discussion

3. Acceptable Citation Practice

Citations should be included only where they are relevant to the manuscript’s scholarly content and necessary to support context, claims, methods, prior work, comparison, or interpretation.

• References should be directly relevant to the manuscript
• Citations should reflect the actual scholarly contribution of the cited work
• Reference lists should be balanced and not artificially inflated
• Authors should cite foundational, recent, and directly relevant literature where appropriate

4. What Constitutes Citation Manipulation

Citation manipulation occurs when citations are added, requested, removed, or emphasized primarily to influence metrics, visibility, or reputation, rather than to improve scholarly accuracy or completeness.

• Adding irrelevant citations to inflate citation counts
• Pressuring authors to cite specific articles, proceedings, or editors without clear justification
• Requesting excessive self-citation or venue-citation without scholarly need
• Building reference lists that are disproportionate to the manuscript’s topic or scope
• Citation stacking or coordinated citation behavior intended to influence metrics

5. Author Responsibilities

Authors are responsible for ensuring that all references in their manuscript are relevant, accurate, and included for scholarly reasons.

• Do not add references solely to satisfy non-scholarly pressure
• Avoid unnecessary self-citation or citation padding
• Ensure cited sources have been read or appropriately verified
• Maintain a reference list that is proportionate and relevant to the study

If authors believe that citation requests made during review are excessive, irrelevant, or coercive, they may respond respectfully and explain why a suggested citation has not been adopted.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers may recommend citations only when they genuinely strengthen the manuscript. Citation suggestions must be limited, relevant, and clearly justified.

• Suggest references only where they improve scholarly accuracy or context
• Do not request citations to your own work unless genuinely necessary
• Do not recommend citations for personal, institutional, or metric advantage
• Avoid large, unjustified citation lists in review comments

7. Editor Responsibilities

Editors must ensure that citation-related suggestions made during the editorial process are academically justified and not influenced by metric goals or reputational interests.

• Do not pressure authors to cite specific journals, proceedings, editors, or titles without scholarly reason
• Evaluate reviewer citation requests for relevance and proportionality
• Intervene where reviewer comments appear coercive or citation-driven
• Protect authors from inappropriate citation pressure during revision

8. Examples of Unacceptable Conduct

The following are examples of citation behavior that may be treated as misconduct or serious editorial non-compliance:

• An editor requesting that authors add citations to the same venue or editorial network without clear relevance
• A reviewer insisting on multiple citations to their own work without adequate scholarly justification
• Authors inserting blocks of loosely related citations to increase visibility or appease pressure
• Conference or proceedings organizers promoting patterns of reciprocal or stacked citation behavior
• Using citations strategically to influence index-based, author-based, or venue-based metrics

9. Editorial Assessment of Citation Concerns

Editors may review citation behavior during screening, peer review, revision, or post-publication if a pattern appears excessive, irrelevant, or potentially manipulative.

• Check whether citations are relevant to the manuscript’s subject matter
• Review whether reviewer or editor requests are justified
• Assess unusual self-citation or venue-citation patterns
• Request clarification from authors or reviewers where appropriate

10. Actions in Cases of Citation Manipulation

If inappropriate citation behavior is suspected, SIARE may take actions proportionate to the seriousness and context of the concern.

• Request revision of the reference list
• Remove or reject unjustified citation requests during review
• Seek explanation from the author, reviewer, or editor involved
• Escalate the matter for editorial or ethics review
• Reject the manuscript in serious cases
• Apply post-publication correction where the scholarly record has been distorted

11. Relation to Misconduct and Editorial Integrity

Citation manipulation may overlap with broader concerns involving peer review abuse, editorial misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or attempts to distort the scholarly record. Where patterns suggest systematic or intentional abuse, the case may be handled under SIARE’s misconduct procedures.

12. Proceeding-Specific and Conference-Level Considerations

Because SIARE follows a conference-linked proceedings model, citation practices at the conference review stage should also remain academically justified and free from metric-driven influence. Organizers, scientific committees, and guest editors must not encourage citation practices intended to artificially benefit a conference, proceedings series, or specific scholarly network.

13. Related Policies

This page should be read together with:

• Publication Ethics
• Peer Review Policy
• Handling Misconduct
• Conflict of Interest Policy
• Editorial Responsibilities
• Decision Guidelines for Editors
• Citation & Visibility