Runts of the Litter

Aug 18 2015 Published by 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

  • Beaker says:

    All of my children are above average.

  • Dave says:

    What do you consider a success in terms of citations? Just curious.....

  • tom says:

    were they boring papers or interesting and never appreciated?

    I have a few really boring papers. 🙁

  • drugmonkey says:

    Mine are all fascinating and awesome.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Dave- "lots".

  • odyssey says:

    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.

  • Dave says:

    I find myself obsessing over the full text downloads:abstract views ratios lately. I think it's becoming unhealthy.

  • drugmonkey says:

    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.

  • Grumble says:

    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?

  • Jonathan Badger says:

    And when it generally gets cited for something you kind of thought was minor aside as well!

  • drugmonkey says:

    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.

  • Pippso says:

    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.

  • drugmonkey says:

    If it uses the method, it is related! Good for you.

  • SidVic says:

    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.

  • drugmonkey says:

    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.

  • GFD says:

    my first 2 papers will probably be my most successful papers for awhile. everything else pales

  • drugmonkey says:

    Well yes, chronology does play a big role in total cites...

  • GFD says:

    also, self citations

  • drugmonkey says:

    True.

Leave a Reply