Dear All,
I just looked at the human hDCP2 enzyme paper from 2002, that has a staggering 439 citations, while mine on the AtDCP2 enzyme, published in 2007, in Nucleic Acids Research, has 25.
439 against 25..........
How come Plant Molecular Sciences papers, are paupers when it comes to similar papers in Humans.
How crazy is that? I guess life is not fair, in the sciences too.
Dilantha
Dear Dilantha Gunawardana,
All human activities are made by real humans. We are biological beings and cannot get rid of our personalities when we teach, when we write, when we plan experiments or when we do experiments.
Publishing is about scientific communication and the most important rule is to be truthful - everything else is secondary.
Papers are accepted by humans who read them first, most of the time (in good journals at least) these individuals are carefully chosen according to their expertise and they have limitations too.
Did the paper you mention required that many citations? Probably it did...
Your paper seemed more self-supported and did not cite so many other works, but it was equally accepted. Which paper will have more impact to future research? - time will tell...
Trying to put limits to this kind of details in papers seems pointless to me, and most of the time, the true limits are imposed by the editorials' need to make the papers concise and keep the production cost affordable. Why should that be a problem?
Best wishes,
Rogelio
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Enzymology
- Enzymes