Are citation chances for researches in pure sciences more likely than researches in humanities to hit a high score?!
Of course you'll get cited when you write a good research, but based on observation I noticed that researches in sciences like physics, biology, mathematics,...etc get more citations even though some researchers come from a not very robust academic background!
Thank you for sharing your opinion!
Muthana - it is, as you point out variable, but researchers in pure science disciplines do seem to have an advantage over those in social sciences/humanities. Often, this is because the journals are more 'historical' and established - so have 'worked hard' at improving and targeting. As a result they can be more competetive as well - and so can cream the best submissions off the top. A classic example would be people striving to publish in Science or Nature. Many high-ranking journals center on certain disciplines - such as medicine - which routinely employ experimental designs etc. These are seen by many as more citable as the outcomes are often viewed as 'black and white' - even if they may not actually be so.
Thanks, Dean Whitehead . I agree. This is an excellent explanation.
Experimental scientific research is very specific as its variables are culture, time and place bound that is why it is more likely to be cited. Shouldn't citation in humanities then carry more weight than its counterpart in pure sciences?
In an ideal world that would be nice Muthana - but tradition dictates. It may be that humanities citation is harder to come by but it could be argued that it's more difficult to get published, in the first place, in the pure sciences. Of course, this is an over-generalisation - but could be a counter.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics