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.

翻译：引用对于认可科学贡献至关重要，然而引用行为受到的影响远不止于相关性和质量。我们分析了2000年至2025年间发表的大约25.5万篇经同行评议的天文学论文，以探究期刊被引频次与其发文量和作者背景之间的关系。我们发现，多学科期刊获得的引用数量不成比例地高，可达到其论文份额的九倍，而专业领域期刊的引用频率低于其产出比例。当作者在其发表论文的期刊内进行引用时，引用次数也显著增加，这种偏差在多学科期刊中尤为突出。尽管这一效应在过去十年间有所减弱，但仍值得关注。这些模式可能源于主题聚类、机构/个人发表习惯以及为契合编辑期望而进行的策略性引用。我们的研究结果揭示了科学可见性中持续存在的结构性偏差，并暗示基于引用的指标在应用时需更充分地认识到其所反映的发表背景。我们鼓励作者、审稿人和编辑关注这些动态，在选择参考文献时力求公平和包容。