User:Ben Moore/Referencing your own papers
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: While your own publications may be useful sources for a Wikipedia article, realise that by referencing them yourself you have a conflict of interest and Wikipedia is not a platform to promote your work. |
Some academics feel that their new paper is a significant advance in their field, and they should add their findings to a relevant Wikipedia article (or several) once it has been published. Despite covering scientific topics, Wikipedia is not a compendium of cutting edge research, it's an encyclopaedia and largely based on secondary sources. The expertise of academics can have a hugely positive impact in Wikipedia's most technical areas, however those who edit should do so with the aim of improving the encyclopaedia as opposed to advancing their own interests.
Research papers
[edit]A research paper is likely a primary source and should be used with care. Wikipedia articles are written with due weight to relevant concepts. For example, a specific new physiological finding of narrow interest should not be added to the biology article. If your research article proves influential in a field, it will likely be mentioned in a subsequent review paper. Additionally, if your research output proves to significantly advance a field, someone unconnected with it will sooner or later mention it on the relevant Wikipedia article(s). To convince yourself of this, consider the practice of academic citations whereby useful and impactful publications generally attract citations without the involvement of the original researchers.
Reviews
[edit]Review papers can be excellent sources to help improve and expand a Wikipedia article. If you have a review published and you feel it has valuable content with which to expand an article, consider linking to it on the article's talk page, while also disclosing your connection with the publication.
Altmetric scores
[edit]Some altmetrics aggregators consider Wikipedia citations as a measure of influence of an article. Two reasons this might be discouraged from a Wikipedia perspective are:
- Even a source highly cited on Wikipedia is not necessarily so due to its own merit as a scientific publication. Perhaps its more accessible, covers a broad range of topics or has a Wikipedia-compatible license permitting reuse of text and images. Thus a citation on Wikipedia may not hold the same traditional value of a citation in other academic articles.
- The system is open to being gamed by researchers looking to raise the profile of their research. There are lengthy guidelines aimed at preventing external link spam, but additional references may not receive the same kind of scrutiny. However, typically an account or IP range history will show related edits on inspection, leaving a potentially embarrassing permanent record of reference spam.