Metric-driven academia, with its focus on h-indices and impact factors, has led to shady behaviors like citation cartels and publication bounties.
Superfluous self-citations are also shady, but a few self-citations are natural when developing a line of research. So, go ahead and post a selfie.
Think of the baristas at your local coffee shop. When they put the tip jar out at the start of their shift, they’ll throw in a couple bucks so you, the customer, don’t feel like you’re the first to acknowledge their hard work.
After all, when searching Google Scholar, or any other database, do you feel better about downloading, reading, and potentially citing a paper that says “Cited by 2” or “Cited by 0”?
But, ultimately, write good papers. If your paper adds value, people will cite it.
Portwood Digital 
Hi PD,
1)Manuscript changes that contained citations to small, distantly relevant articles, including those of poor quality, were recommended by peer reviewers of papers we submitted for probable publication. The citations that were suggested were all from the same study group. Some researchers boost their citation numbers by self-citation, while some journal editors solicit writers to reference publications from their journal in order to boost the impact factor of the publication. Requesting citation of one’s own work through peer review, on the other hand, is possibly even more concerning because peer reviewers have a significant impact on whether or not an article is published. Reviewer remarks designed to increase the citation of a reviewer’s own work are inconsistent with the peer reviewer’s responsibilities.
2)Self-citation is the best way to demonstrate a conflict of interest in this circumstance. I believe that you should avoid citing your own work or those of your close associates (whether or not they are a co-author on your current manuscript). You establish a conflict of interest every time you do so. Even if a self-citation is justified, there is at the very least an apparent conflict of interest.
LikeLike