Dear Vladyslav Honcharenko to be honest: I don't really understand the desire to increase citations either! I have never seen citations count when it came to promotion within the university or get hired. We did successful research in inorganic chemistry for about 25 years (1976 - ca. 2000) without knowing our citation counts (because there was no internet). Even today I don't care much about citations. I recently found out that ca. 7% of all our research papers have never been cited, not even by ourselves. This does of course not means that they are not interesting. So my suggestion would be to just watch the citations happen (or not) and keep doing great research.

I also do not have much experience in this area. In my opinion, you need to give the name in English, write on a current topic, use words in the title that can be used for search engines.

Sincerely, Nadiia Tsyganova

En internet el resultado científico que no se ve no existe. La pregunta sería ¿Para qué publicar? Para obtener becas, grados científicos o académicos, ascensos..etc. Las normas de publicación han cambiado, hoy no es sólo publicar, hay que divulgar. Éxitos

As researchers who want to contribute to our scientific community's knowledge, we are engaged in at least three competitions, namely the competition for communication channels for our contributions, the competition for our contributions to be used by community members, and the competition for the means to continue the production of contributions. These competitions are both inevitable (they are inextricably linked to us being members of scientific communities) and essential (we need to be successful in order to maintain our identity as researchers). The question "How do you increase the visibility of published article?" addresses the second competition I mentioned. Increased visibility measn increased chances of our contribution to be used, which helps maintain our identity as researchers. Hence the attention.

Thank you, Jochen Glaser!

Thank you, Norbisley Fernández! I did not mean the publication of scientific work. I want to understand why to take any action to increase visibility.

The main reason to want to increase visibility of a published paper is to try to increase citations of the paper. The reason for this is to try to strengthen our attempts to get promotions within the university, or to get hired. The other reasons are that citations may help get grant funding by indicating the 'importance' of our paper. While these are true, of course it is most important to publish in areas where there are a lot of people publishing. If you are the 'top' expert in an area that no one else publishes in, you may do great and wonderful work but you will not be cited and therefore 'ignored' by the scientifici community. So poor quality papers in 'popular' research areas will get more citations and 'fame' than high quality science in areas of research with few researchers and publications.

Thank you, Robert John Wolff. I understand what you are talking about. It is a pity that scientists are forced to think about the number of citations to find funding.

Dear Vladislav,

Optimizing searching is one strategy. Update and expand constantly the article on databases is ok. However, if you really want to get more readings, write about hot topics, involve your students in discussions and co-authoring (because you can also profit from their RG network). Additionally, create a lab, gathering all co-authors, add projects to your portfolio, and ultimately, create posts on social networks redirecting RG article. In sum, share! Very best, Murillo

Thank you, dear Murillo Dias. I understand when a scientist wants to get more readings, but I don't understand the desire to increase citations. This indicator is quantitative, not qualitative.

Dear Vladyslav Honcharenko to be honest: I don't really understand the desire to increase citations either! I have never seen citations count when it came to promotion within the university or get hired. We did successful research in inorganic chemistry for about 25 years (1976 - ca. 2000) without knowing our citation counts (because there was no internet). Even today I don't care much about citations. I recently found out that ca. 7% of all our research papers have never been cited, not even by ourselves. This does of course not means that they are not interesting. So my suggestion would be to just watch the citations happen (or not) and keep doing great research.

Dear Frank T. Edelmann. I completely agree with you. That's why I asked this question. I want to understand the reasons for this interest.

We should certainly not forget that there are also other motives for increasing the visibility of our publications. One is, that it makes us feel more important, as we need our ego stroked. More citations also do this, so some researchers find a way to do self citations of all their papers, even if not relevant. This need for 'numbers' (or 'attention'?) leads to problems here on RG - some members think that they need to increase their RG Score that they in desperation write endless replies that say nothing (or extremely little), never add quality to their posts, and then have all their friends recommend the inane post. Our desperation for attention causes some RGers to recommend anything they see on here, no matter how worthless, vapid, meaningless, or fully incorrect. Guess we all want numbers and attention and will find some way to attempt to get it.

Thank you Robert John Wolff for your opinion. The current system encourages scientists to think not only about the quality of scientific papers, but also about the number of citations. And often the second becomes more important than the first.

Thank you Carmen Pavelescu for your opinion. It is right. But it is important which goal is more important - the number of readings or the number of citations. Not always the little-cited scientific work is bad and vice versa.

I believe the Impact Factor (original IF) is based only on citations. First for number of citations for two years, and then those over 5 years. I am not sure reads count at all, and if they did, it would mean that the publishers and authors would not want to post the articles on RG or elsewhere as that would decrease the number of reads they could count.

Dear Prof Vladyslav Honcharenko , visibility is related to something more fundamental which is imbedded in our genes: Attention Seeking. It looks very irrational in the modern civilized society and may be regarded as some form of personality disorder, but in the stone age of human history or for a new born baby, attention seeking was/is an very important skill for survive. Even though after we have grown up and left the stone age, we still carry this behaviour unconsciously and irrationally, no matter it is about the RG score or number of reads on ResearchGate, and it does waste a lot of our time for this irrational behaviour of us.