Novelty is important in any project even when it is a small idea. For me citation is important as much as my papers serve the society. Happiness is not when you publish a paper or get a citation. The real happiness is when your published work becomes applicable somewhere in the community.

Scholarly "influence" is proxied by sundry bibliometric indicators but the numbers may have more to do with "performance" rather than "impact", all such terminology subject to differing interpretations. What of, for instance, one publication that attract few readers (let alone citations) but somehow finds its way into the hands of a policy maker who decides to act on it? Is linking research to practice, rather than bibliometric "reputation", not the idea?

Article Linking Research to Practice

Article Enriching Policy with Research

Depends on subject

Art and literature works themselves are evaluated

Sciences tend to get more citations

Research on literary theory, humanities and only 20 citations good. But we do not have data for all the his as not all texts digitized

The Scientation index formed in 50s, whereas social sciences index about 20 years. Science citations were important so research design and method could be replicated. SS are really following system set up by scientists and market rationality we are working towards undermines creativity

Research and articles must pose a good influence on society rather than getting citations.

Muhammad

That depends who funded the research

If we value openness and creativity all writing has merits. Not all writing is for impact, it can be musing! Many now write for impact as that is nature of field.

But the creation of graphene a new material was blue Skye research...and it turned out to have value

Hi,

It depends on who (known persons in the scientific community) cites the research and where it is cited (indexed and impact factor journals).

For management over 100 good

Many Management journals have lower JIF, simply because the measure was designed for science subjects so experiments could be replicated.

Muhammad Zeeshan Akram , I would suggest you use Bibliometrix. As other colleagues expressed, it will depend on the topic, area and scope of your systematic review. Using that package, you will be able to identify under different metrics the most influential, productive, etc based on authorship.

There you are the links you may find more information about it:

https://bibliometrix.org/documents/bibliometrix_Report.html

(User guide)

https://bibliometrix.org/

(General archive/package page)

As a general rule, we need to aim to use one to three, to support each key point we make. This of course depends on subject matter and the point we are discussing, but acts as a good general guide although reviewers may request additional citations to support the arguments

In Manufacturing and Operations Research I consider publications with 50+ citations influential. However, i know from my own experience that openaccess papers recieve more citations just due to the fact of availibility which initiates a bias.

I see papers (including one of my own) in our field with 300+ citations were i know better approaches to the same issue exist...however not open access resulting in around 10 citations. As a result the worse approach becomes the standard.

I would think to get a real insight about a papers quality, the journal it is published in counts most as well as the quality of the authors citing the paper (not the amount).

Good question. Most of my original works remain un-cited. But that has never deterred me from continuing with my work.

The citation reflect the popularity of the subject area and also the quality and /or relevance of the research variables.

The extent to which a research work is cited in other academic work is a reflection of the impact of that research. This provides input for ranking of a research in the form of h-index.