Reinforcing Prestige: Journal Citation Biases in Astronomy

TL;DR

This study reveals biases in astronomy journal citations, showing multidisciplinary journals are over-cited and authors tend to cite their own publications, influenced by topical and institutional factors, affecting scientific visibility.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive analysis of citation biases in astronomy, highlighting the influence of journal type and author behavior on citation patterns.

Findings

Multidisciplinary journals receive up to nine times more citations than expected.

Authors cite their own publications more when publishing in the same journal.

Citation biases have decreased over the past decade but remain significant.

Abstract

Citations are essential for recognizing scientific contributions, yet citation behavior is shaped by more than just relevance or quality. We analyzed approximately 255,000 refereed astronomy articles published between 2000 and 2025 to investigate how journals are cited relative to their publication volume and authorship context. We find that multidisciplinary journals receive disproportionately more citations, up to nine times higher than their share of articles, while field-specific journals are cited less frequently in proportion to their output. Citations to a journal also increase significantly when authors publish within it, a bias particularly pronounced in multidisciplinary journals. Although this effect has declined over the past decade, it remains notable. These patterns likely arise from a combination of topical clustering, institutional/individual publishing habits, and strategic referencing to align with editorial expectations. Our findings reveal persistent structural biases in scientific visibility and suggest that citation-based metrics should be used with greater awareness of the publishing context they reflect. We encourage authors, reviewers, and editors to remain mindful of these dynamics and strive for fairness and inclusivity when selecting references.