2026-05-06 –, Track 1
Many academic journals limit the number of references allowed in articles or include them in the word count. However, this can lead to biased citation decisions. For example, if three references are relevant to a claim, but only one is permitted, a researcher may favor their own studies.
In fact, after a top-tier psychology journal implemented a reference limit, the percentage of references to authors who are people of color decreased, while self-citations and references to overcited countries increased. This was not the case for a comparable journal without reference limits.
In the context of current calls for more intentional and inclusive citation practices, annotated reference lists can be a starting point. However, for daily academic review and publishing practices, automated reference evaluation tools could be a more effective alternative to reference limits. These tools could promote conciseness, accuracy, and inclusiveness in scholarly referencing.
I am a senior researcher at the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) in Metascience and Information and Retrieval Services. My work focuses on researcher behavior and science mapping, using bibliometrics, natural language processing, and computational methods.