Aug 18 2015 Published by drugmonkey under Science Publication, Scientific Publication
Sometimes, I page back through my Web of Science list of pubs to the minimal citations range.
I love all of my papers of course, and feel a little sorry for the ones that never garnered much appreciation.
19 responses so far
All of my children are above average.
What do you consider a success in terms of citations? Just curious.....
were they boring papers or interesting and never appreciated?
I have a few really boring papers. 🙁
Mine are all fascinating and awesome.
I look at my runts as those papers that will explode with citations when the field eventually comes around to recognizing their prescient brilliance. That'll probably be some time after I die.
I find myself obsessing over the full text downloads:abstract views ratios lately. I think it's becoming unhealthy.
Everything about paper altmetrics is unhealthy, my friend.
To be slightly more serious about your cites question, I have at least four different categories of paper that I expect to receive very different cite numbers in the categories of good/under performance. Specifics are nearly meaningless.
The converse question: What do you feel about the paper that you thought was destined to be a sniveling little runt, ignored by everyone, which instead rises in fame to the point where it's actually more widely cited than the papers you've published that you think are better and more meaningful?
And when it generally gets cited for something you kind of thought was minor aside as well!
Grumble- I never think my papers are destined to be ignored.
JB- if by "aside" you mean some feature of the data that didn't mean all-that to me at the time...this is fantastic. The way science should go. Different people are interested in different things.
I have this tiny paper that does close to nothing to improve the human kind but has a very detailed method section that explains how to analyze certain data (using quite a standard approach in my opinion btw). Well it is now cited almost only in completely unrelated papers using this method, which I find nuts but hey, whateva.
If it uses the method, it is related! Good for you.
Yeah, I've lost all confidence in my ability to judge whether a given paper will be cited a lot, or not. I have recently experienced some sleepers. papers that languished and have begun to garner citations 5-10 years out. As far numbers I enjoy when a manuscript get cited in excess of the journal's IF.
Yeah I agree about beating the JIF over the first two years. But what I really enjoy more is when it beats the JIF of the journal that rejected that particular manuscript.
my first 2 papers will probably be my most successful papers for awhile. everything else pales
Well yes, chronology does play a big role in total cites...
also, self citations
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded researcher who blogs about careerism in science. And occasionally about the science of drug use.
Site Admin | Theme by Niyaz
Drugmonkey Copyright © 2017 All Rights Reserved