Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A researcher citing their own earlier methods paper instead of re-describing a validated protocol in full, so readers can locate the detailed procedure without it being repeated in every subsequent paper.
- Is an instance
An author citing their own prior study to properly credit and contextualize how a new paper extends or replicates that earlier work, using the same citation-style conventions (APA, MLA, Chicago, Vancouver) applied to any other reference.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
An author citing several of their own tangentially related papers in an introduction with no substantive connection to the current argument, primarily to raise their personal citation count — self-serving self-citation rather than a citation that does real argumentative work.
- Not an instance
Two authors, or two journals, agreeing to reciprocally cite each other's work at an inflated rate specifically to boost citation-based metrics such as Journal Impact Factor — citation stacking, a form of citation manipulation that Clarivate's JCR monitors and can suppress journals over.
Editorial commentary
A Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) is one of the U.S. National Science Foundation’s standard mechanisms for communicating with the research community, distinct from a Program Solicitation or Funding Opportunity Announcement. NSF’s Proposal & Award Policies & Procedures Guide (PAPPG), Chapter I, describes DCLs as communications used to provide general information, clarify or amend an existing NSF policy or document, or inform the proposer community about upcoming opportunities — not to establish an independent funding competition.
How a DCL differs from a Program Solicitation
The practical test research administrators should apply is structural, not just topical: does the document create its own eligibility rules, proposal-preparation requirements, submission deadlines, and review process? If yes, it is a Program Solicitation (or another formal funding opportunity announcement) — governed as such under the PAPPG and typically covered in detail in a page like CASRAI’s NSF Grants: An Overview. If instead the document simply flags an area of interest, clarifies a policy point, or directs proposers to an existing NSF proposal type (RAPID, EAGER, RAISE, Planning Grant, or Conference/Workshop), it is a DCL. NSF is explicit that a DCL does not, by itself, substitute for a full solicitation or carry a dedicated review framework.
Why DCLs matter for research administration
Because a DCL is often the earliest signal of a new NSF programmatic priority — sometimes months before any solicitation or expanded funding line materializes — sponsored-programs offices and grants administrators frequently track directorate-level DCL pages as part of funding-opportunity horizon scanning. Unlike a solicitation, a DCL rarely has a hard proposal deadline of its own; instead, proposals responding to a DCL are usually submitted under the standing rules of whichever existing mechanism (e.g., EAGER) the DCL points to, and are subject to that mechanism’s normal PAPPG requirements (award size and duration caps, internal concurrence steps, PI eligibility, etc.). Administrators should not treat a DCL as a guarantee of funding availability — it signals interest, not a set-aside budget or a commitment to fund a given volume of proposals.
Where DCLs are published
NSF directorates and divisions publish their own DCLs (for example, NSF’s CISE directorate maintains a running list of Dear Colleague Letters at nsf.gov), and NSF also issues cross-cutting DCLs on agency-wide policy matters (such as changes to biographical sketch or current-and-pending-support requirements ahead of a PAPPG update). Because DCLs are dispersed across directorate pages rather than centralized the way solicitations are indexed, tracking them typically requires either subscribing to directorate-specific mailing lists or periodically checking NSF’s DCL listings directly.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between a Dear Colleague Letter and an NSF program solicitation?
A Dear Colleague Letter communicates general information, clarifies policy, or flags an area of interest, but it does not create its own eligibility rules, proposal-preparation requirements, deadlines, or review process. A Program Solicitation does establish all of those elements and is governed as a formal funding opportunity under the PAPPG.
Does a Dear Colleague Letter have its own submission deadline?
No. A DCL rarely carries a deadline of its own. Proposals responding to a DCL are typically submitted under the standing rules of whatever existing mechanism the DCL points to, such as RAPID or EAGER, and follow that mechanism’s normal PAPPG requirements.
Does receiving a Dear Colleague Letter mean NSF will fund my proposal?
No. A DCL signals NSF’s interest in a topic; it is not a guarantee of funding availability, a set-aside budget, or a commitment to fund any particular volume of proposals.
How should researchers respond to an NSF Dear Colleague Letter?
Since a DCL is not itself a competition, researchers typically respond by submitting a proposal through an existing NSF mechanism it references — most often RAPID, EAGER, RAISE, a Planning Grant, or a Conference/Workshop proposal — following that mechanism’s standard PAPPG requirements on award size, duration, internal concurrence, and PI eligibility.
Where can I find NSF’s current Dear Colleague Letters?
NSF does not centralize DCLs the way it indexes solicitations. Individual directorates and divisions publish their own DCLs on their pages at nsf.gov, so tracking them generally means subscribing to directorate-specific mailing lists or periodically checking those directorate DCL listings directly.
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="Self-Citation"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/self-citation" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/self-citation",
"name": "Self-Citation",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/self-citation",
"description": "Citing one's own previously published work (an article, dataset, preprint, or other output) within a new manuscript. Self-citation is legitimate, and often necessary, when it substantively supports the current work — building on prior results, pointing to a previously validated method instead of repeating it, or situating a study within a sustained research programme. It becomes problematic — citation manipulation rather than ordinary scholarly practice — when self-citations are added primarily to inflate personal or journal-level citation metrics rather than because the cited work is genuinely relevant, including reciprocal citation-stacking arrangements between authors or journals.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/publishing#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/self-citation",
"sameAs": [],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"dateModified": "2026-08-15T04:30:00",
"inLanguage": "en"
}
