The Philosophers' Cocoon

In our new “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

How should one handle self-citation in manuscripts prepared for double-blind peer review?

Phrases like “as I have argued elsewhere…” might reveal who the author is. I saw people replacing their names with “Author (year)”, but this can be transparent in context such as a sentence like “for details, see Author (xxxx)”. People familiar with the literature (who are supposed to be reviewers) can easily know who this is.

Should one engage with one’s own prior work entirely in the third person throughout the draft? If so, do journals allow authors to change back to the first person perspective after the review process, during proofreading or copyediting?

Another reader added:

I would also like to know the answer to this, since, I now have a view that is distinct in the niche my work fits into, and I am somewhat senior enough that I have enough publications to self-cite. When I have not cited myself adequately, I have received reviewers reports telling me to cite my own work more, and in some cases, suggesting that maybe I don’t understand what my own view actually is …..

It is becoming quite an irritating feature.

Good questions. We have discussed this at the blog in the past, and my recollection is that the general consensus was to cite oneself in the 3rd person. But, as the OP notes, even that can give away one’s identity–so it seems to me that the best policy is to cite oneself in the 3rd person but also do so in an understated way that does not make it clear that you’re the author of the paper. Not sure if this is always feasible, but I don’t know any other better solution.

What do readers think?