Hello Davide Papurello,

I personally believe that the number of publications by a researcher has a direct bearing on the number of his/her citations. However, a word of caution deems necessary here. Only quality publications in prestigious journals tend to bring in more citations.

Best regards,

R. Biria

A single review article in a current hot reseach field/topic would bring hundreds of citations in few months time and thousands of citations in few years time.

Few regular articles in a top journal may bring good amount of citations in the coming years.

Commonly, more you publish more would be your citations.

Citation is a strong function of number of reseach groups/researchers working on a particular area across the globe. If more number of reseachers work on a particular area/topic, more will be the citations. Topic of reseach is a key factor to fetch citations.

Some good articles on some topics may not bring citations at all due to few people investigating on that field.

Dear Davide: To me quality of  articles is more important. Citations will automatically be there if the quality of the articles is good and other researchers are working in the allied topic. One should not run after more and more publications comprising with the quality.

Best of luck in your research work.

Subir.

I agree with Subir, quality trumps quantity. The best way to judge a researcher's publication record is with the H-index, which measures the impact your publications have had. The larger the number of publications with significant citations the greater the H-index. This way, you are not a one-trick pony OR you are not benefiting greatly from an article where you were just a minor author. Number of citations alone does not identify those issues. I have seen cases where researchers may have had 150 citations, but most of them came from ONE article where they were a minor contributor (judging from the author order). And they may have very few other citations.

Hi,

It is more important to publish than to collect citations. The life-cycle of citations sometimes show that papers  that  were not cited for several years, are , at a certain point in time , receiving many citations. The point is, that if you do not publish, you cannot collect citations at any time.

Both are important.

If you do not publish, you can not have citations.

The best index of your publishing performance and the feedback of your articles is the h-index.

Both. Citations are depend not only of quantity but of quality of publications. 

https://blog.typeset.io/how-to-increase-citation-count-of-your-research-paper-32749df6e8d2

Better for which purpose? The answer also depends to an extent of the research field. Sometimes a few publications in journals like Nature would well be valued higher than numerous publications in not too good journals, but this balance is still very tricky and depends on the traditions of a particular subfield.

For a researcher, is it better to publish more article or to collect more citations???

Only quality published articles will attract more citations. Finding some novice researchers focusing to publish more articles initially. But when times pass by or when they become more experienced researchers, they might focus on the quality of article that can attract more citations.

Dear Dr. It is better to collect more citations

Number game is secondary. Contributing to society, existing knowledge and economy is important. More papers or more citations, way doesn't matter.

The number of articles depend directly and mainly of the personal effort. However the number of citations, aside from its quality, it will also depend of the area of investigation. Some investigation areas are more cited than others.

Dear Davide, This debatable question I wouldlike to answer it by using h-index score. The real indicator for the scientist productivitiy and its impact in the research field. To score a high h-index you need both number of articles and number of citations. However, if you have more papers but the citations ar not equal your h-index score unlikely move up. Therefore I think both are important the publication number and citation.

All the gist of the question is "for the researcher." It has two meanings: in term of official reward, and in term of personal satisfaction, or what is equivalent, contribution to society. In term of reward it takes only a little of thinking. More articles means more earning for the publishing companies, so more articles, especially printed by the biggest of them that also happen to the more "prestigious" ones, necessarily brings more reward, according to the universal rules of the capitalist system. So for these companies, the goal consists in persuading people that reward equal personal satisfaction, that is, a good researcher necessarily publish more papers. Therefore, even if better evaluations like the H-index exist, in practice it will always be better for the researcher to publish more articles, even if they will only drown in the large pool of insignificant and/or redondant writings. Only if the researcher is looking for genuine personal satisfaction will s-he chose a quite different criterion, which could be the number of citations or something else.

Publishing more articles will attract more citations (if it is high quality work)