This is my observation, I can be wrong. What do you say about it. I wrote three papers on transformative marketing, my these articles are getting least visibility. ( Transformative marketing was introduced in August 2018 in Journal of Marketing by Dr.V. Kumar)
Just for the sake of comparison you can see the performance of well researched topics interms of reads vs new topic article..
New topic articles
Article Impact of Over-the-Top (OTT) Services on the Telecom Compani...
Article Service Quality Analysis Of Private Universities Libraries I...
Article Want To Stay The Market Leader In The Era Of Transformative ...
Old topic articles
Article Measuring and Comparing the Desired and Actual Service Quali...
Article Customer-based brand equity and firms' performance in the te...
On other side researchers are evaluated based on the citations? I wonder how it works, what is your opinion on it? How you keep the balance?
Muhammad - it doesn't seem that strange to me. New topics take time to get established and gain momentum in the research world. Some fade quickly and are hardly noticed - until the trend crops up again. It is part of the 'art' of research. Those that note new social trends and phenomena, and can react quickly, have a high chance of being among the first to publish - either conceptual material to establish or applied research findings. Most topics, however, soon get noticed and there is often a 'flurry' of research that follows within 5-years of the original findings. The thing is that the 'original' research tends to be acknowledged as such and is often the highest cited. A handful of my 'oldest' works, that might be considered seminal in my field, are amongst my highest cited works - and are still regularly cited even though they are 15-years plus.
Muhammad - it doesn't seem that strange to me. New topics take time to get established and gain momentum in the research world. Some fade quickly and are hardly noticed - until the trend crops up again. It is part of the 'art' of research. Those that note new social trends and phenomena, and can react quickly, have a high chance of being among the first to publish - either conceptual material to establish or applied research findings. Most topics, however, soon get noticed and there is often a 'flurry' of research that follows within 5-years of the original findings. The thing is that the 'original' research tends to be acknowledged as such and is often the highest cited. A handful of my 'oldest' works, that might be considered seminal in my field, are amongst my highest cited works - and are still regularly cited even though they are 15-years plus.
New research work is not cited immediately and remains dormant but eventually comes to dominate a field (if it is a great work).
Hi,
It is like a new type of food that is introduced to people. At first they hesitate to taste it, but once they tasted it they are willing to have more and more of it.....
I agree with colleagues that new topics are like diffusion of any innovation--there a few innovators, an many laggards. More importantly, there is a correlation between extensively researched topics and and importance of those topics in terms of their applications and implications. Topics that are ignored by most researchers may remain unexplored because they are perceived as low-priority topics; and thus get fewer citations.
So, hold to intrinsic satisfaction. What is that deep thing that exercises our brain? We must pursue it well. Response of the outside world is secondary. Yes, it can be painful. Only a few people close might notice the insight of the research. Yet, if the research unearths deep questions, time will expose the work. Cf. Emmy Noether.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers