Papers are written to satisfy personal challenges, and to be published, read, discussed, and cited.
If a published paper has zero (or very few) citations, is it irrelevant?
Dear Michael
I never judge by h index , citation or even title and position as have found that the value of something is inside it only
No, it may be that you are ahead of time. If you are wrong some would comment. But go and reflect. Did you present the material in such a difficult manner that no one understands? Make it relevant others, and ask experts what is going worn by sending them your published paper and rectify those mistakes in the next paper. Develop your own network of specialists with whom you should share your new work. Good lick!
Hi Michael - personally, I don't think so. Any paper is worth something - even if it serves to identify 'how not to and/or how to go about things differently'. It may actually be that the paper is of academic value - just submitted to the 'wrong place at the wrong time' - and may eventually be discovered. Citation is acknowledgement that something has been formally read and acknowledged - but we can also know that something that is not cited/low cited is well read. On RG, for instance, I have an article that is low cited but has over 15,000 reads. Another perspective is that I have articles that are highly cited (at least for my discipline) and yet I can see that a proportion of those citations are not an accurate representation of what I have reported and, perhaps, the articles have not actually been read at all - yet cited.
Hi Michael,
I think that the published paper is important at some point to somebody in this world. few citation may mean few people are interested in the field you are working on.
Good luck
To Dean:
A number of unscrupulous, though leading journals (actually, the Editors-in-Chief) in economics, finance and tourism research have given lists of papers that had to be included in the reference list before a conditional acceptance was changed to an unconditional acceptance.
I declined politely, or so I thought, and promptly received a rejection letter.
I followed this up with WoS after complaining and providing a copy of the paper trail, and the journal was put on notice.
It helped that the WoS data showed the journal self-citation to be 77%.
In short, I agree that a number of references are cited without having been read for a few papers, but I am sure that highly cited papers have been read.
As for uncited papers, including zero self citations, over a number of years, one has to wonder whether the journal (Editors, Associate editors and referees) might have made a mistake.
I invented "Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors" (PI-BETA).
If an author or co-authors do not cite their own paper at least once in their lives, it must say something about the paper, the author, or both.
To Mustafa:
There will certainly be cases where a topic is so highly specialized and/or technical that few researchers work in, or even understand, what is going on in the area.
I do not think this explains the bulk of papers that remain uncited, even by the authors, over an extended period.
Hi Michael - yes I have heard from others about having to cite from journal before publication. Personally, it has not happened to me before. Perhaps I target journals that are 'comfortable in their own skin'. That brings me to another point. I do a lot of homework before i target a 'new' journal - which includes scope, IF, quartile rating etc. Of course, one can't force readers to read their work but, with careful targeting, ones chance of their work being noticed and cited increases - even if it isn't necessarily great work. That is the reality. 50% of research, in my mind, in any given 'good' journal is 'average at best'.
It takes time to get cited. It has to be read enough by people of the same specialty.
You don't say how many "reads" you have. I have a paper with about 3,000 reads but no citation. So, it is popular, but not worth citing in the readers' next paper as it didn't give them any new ideas, I guess.
To Dean:
I agree, in general, with your assessment.
Leading journals are defined as such because they typically have high impact factors and/or have been around for years, or both.
Most leading journals in Economics and Finance have a small number (
To Michael:
I agree that it takes time, in general, to be cited.
At least one exception seems to be in the field of medical science, where a paper has to be cited almost immediately (typically within months) of publication, otherwise it is likely to be overtaken by more "current" research ideas and innovations.
If you have many Reads for a paper, it has obviously intrigued academics, but may not have necessarily have been directly related to their current research.
A Citation means that a paper has been mentioned in the reference list of a published paper as relevant, somehow defined.
Both Reads and Citations can provide new ideas
The numbers of Reads, Citations and other information are available when you click on a name.
Citation depend on the number of people working on same topic or related work. Sometime its need time to cite. If the article get cite that shows somebody following this.
To Sandeep:
I agree with your assessment.
In a multi-disciplinary area, overlapping research interests are common, albeit slight.
Getting more citation may be the popularity of the research area and it is directly proportional to the groups of researchers working on the same research area. So getting zero citation not irrelevant.
To Mahendra:
Citations depend on a number of factors, including the popularity of the area, as you mentioned.
Citations also depend on the number of co-authors, as each can cite the paper.
Zero citations means that even the authors do not cite their paper, which is suggestive as to what they think of it.
Citations are quite complex mechanism, they depend on
1. How many people are working in the similar area
2. How many people are searching with proper JEL or PACS etc.
3. How many are following your research closely
4. Which University you belong to (the bigger the University, the higher the visibility)
5. New and uncharted topics and areas are often neglected (e.g. Bachelier's trailblazing work started to get sizeable citations only after 15 years post his death)
1. Citations depend on whether they article in open access
2. Some authors deliberately cite the editors of the journal, and in some journal suggest who to cite, what is not ethical
3. Some editors have a deale to cite each other deal
4. Some of the well-known authors use article still unknown autors for idea and publish a similar article in the journal with the great IF, and not cite well-known authors in theire article with the great IF.....
It is wire, but sometimes, there are excellent papers with a very few number of citations.
@ Michael John McAleer : Your statement, " The best journal in Finance has an historical % of zero citations of well over 80%, which means it publishes the very best papers in finance that are cited widely." is confusing. If 80% of papers have zero citations, how does it imply that the journal publishes the very best papers in finance that are cited widely
To Syed:
The intent was that the Journal of Finance is accepted by virtually every academic in Finance as the leading journal because it has published the very best papers in the discipline.
Most papers published in the Journal of Finance are either not cited at all, or are cited a small number of times.
This means that the high impact of the Journal of Finance arises from fewer than around 100 papers (of the thousands that have been published) that have a very large number of citations.
To Yasaman:
I agree with your assessment.
Conditioning on the factors you have mentioned, citations are important in evaluating the quality of a published paper.
If a paper is not cited years after it was published, it is irrelevant, by definition, as no one cares to cite it - not even the authors !
No, but please try to increase your academic visibility by creating accounts in a trusted academic platforms and uploading your publications (taking into your account publishing copyrights), then you will be visible to other colleagues and it will be a great chance to get more citations followed by increasing your h-index, sir.
Good luck,
Emad
To Emad Kamil Hussein:
Visibility and trust are key aspects of your insightful response.
To Joshua:
I am glad that we have reached the same conclusion about zero citations and irrelevant papers.
i invented the acronym: PI-BETA = Papers Ignored - By Even The Authors.
Some papers are useful to get a base on a subject , mostly interdisciplinary ones, which may not be cited. Say , an Article on "Parliamentary Democracy" from a Political Science Journal will give people in law like me, an understanding of the theory . But I may not cite it in my Article . So citation is not a yardstick to assess the significance of a write-up . Nonetheless, citations make a paper more relevant.
To Dr Singhu:
Many thanks for throwing light on interdisciplinary research that might be educational and enlightening, even if it is not cited in academic research.
Citations are an important measure of academic quality, but interesting and informative discussions through Q&A on RG are also an important aspect of academic discourse.
To Chia-Lin Chang:
Zero citations, including self citations, seems to satisfy the definition of "irrelevant".
To Hassan Izzeddin Sarsak :
With respect, might I ask in what way?
If no one, including the authors themselves, cites a paper years after it has been published, in what way might it be construed to be other than irrelevant?
To Fateh Boutekouk :
What you say is entirely possible.
How might it be determined that your work inspired another academic's research?
Papers describing a method are more cited then papers dealing with other topics.
To Jelena B Popović-Djordjević :
Thank you for your interesting answer.
In the disciplines with which I am most familiar, namely economics, econometrics, finance and statistics, I would certainly agree with your assessment.
It is also likely to be true in many other disciplines.
To Dounia Mrad :
I agree that Citations are an arbitrary measure regarding the purported quality of a published paper, but Citations and the h-index are simple and widely accepted metrics of perceived quality.
The alternative measures of research impact, such as the 2-year and 5-year impact factors using data from the Web of Science, and 3-year impact factor (CiteScore) using data from Elsevier Scopus, rely on Citations relative to Total Publications.
Therefore, both Publications and Citations are essential in measuring academic research quality.
To Chia-Lin Chang:
Many thanks for your helpful and clear explanation as to why both Publications and Citations are necessary to evaluate academic research quality.
Some of my published research papers have led to only a small number (> 0) of Citations.
The technical nature of the papers may have been a reason, but they might also have been seen to be uninteresting and/or irrelevant to the profession, at least for the moment.
Only time will tell.
Is it possible that a recent journal paper is cited in Google Scholar by one famous scientist who is among Top 10 Greatest Scientists (https://www.biographyonline.net/scientists/top-10-scientists.html)???
To Romeo:
Many thanks for the website for the "Top 10 Greatest Scientists".
I am sure that each scientist has been cited many times in the literature for their significant contributions..
Dear Michael John,
Of course! But my previous question is proposed in the converse sense (please read it carefully)!!!.
It is possible you have a good paper but may not be well cited because of poor visibility and the low ranking of the journal it was published.
To Abdulmojeed Yakubu :
That is entirely possible.
It is a pity if a good paper were to appear in a low visibility journal as that would add to the quality of the journal but detract from the perceived quality of the paper.
In addition to the points. Some researchers are not sincere with their citations. I have seen people adapt their work with already published paper, yet they refuse to cite the work for reasons best known to them. Rather, they cite the researchers in the papers and fail to acknowledge the owner of the knowledge. These could also be reasons for low citations of very high quality papers.
Second, if the area of research is novel, it takes time to cited. However, after few years, it may have an overwhelming number of citations.
To Romeo:
I always read every Answer to my Questions carefully, and I am pretty sure that i understood what you were implying.
I always try to respond positively.
To Paul Odeniran :
Many thanks for your detailed and helpful explanation and answer.
The decision to include papers in the list of references is entirely the responsibility of the author(s).
If a paper has few Citations, this means that few academics in the literature are citing the paper, which avoids the contention of lack if sincerity.
The Question did not specify a time frame.
A recently published paper might not be expected to have any Citations, although the number of Citations within the first 6 months of publication in medical and health research can be amazing.
However, if a paper that was published some years ago has not yet been cited at all, even by the authors (!), that speaks volumes.
I would like to thank all the academics who have provided interesting and stimulating Answers to the Question.
Those may enlighten, motivate, add to our knowledge and lead us to contribute as well , but may not be required to be cited . Mostly those in interdisciplinary areas of interest , and not in our own discipline purely . But such Articles too are relevant and noteworthy.
To Sindhu,Dr, Thulaseedharan :
Many thanks for your instructive and helpful Answer.
In most cases. However, there's are special situations. For example there are some papers with excellent research concept or specific data (specific to a reagion or a case). If your research along with that, then it is useful). That is why you need to be smart in using literature refine tools such sac scopus.
To Amila Abeynayaka :
Many thanks for your helpful and informative Answer regarding special circumstances, regional emphasis.and specific data.
Citations are certainly be important, if not essential, for evaluating the academic quality of published papers.
However, even without attracting any Citations, published papers may be relevant for disseminating ideas and providing useful references to the literature.
I wish to thank all the respondents for their interesting, challenging, informative, instructive, innovative, topical, timely, entertaining, and occasionally highly amusing, Answers.
In fact, it is not irrelevant an article that does not have citations or these are few. I will explain it without a specific order of importance: • Publication time: The importance of a publication is not immediate, it takes a long period of time. This phenomenon is called "Sleeping Beauty of Science". • Type of journal: The impact factor is a sample of the scope of the journal. • Language: Research published in languages other than English is subject to a lower citation. • Area of Knowledge: Areas such as physics, chemistry, medicine, get citations faster than in administrative sciences, business, entrepreneurship or others. • Author's visibility: The use of social networks is essential to expose the research activity. Example: Researchgate, Twitter, Linkedin, Instagram, Facebook among others. • Participation in Conferences. • Participation in research networks and/or international collaboration networks. • Internal conferences at the university to expose students and colleagues the research and publications. • Thesis direction or research projects. • International and/or national internships. If the researcher does not do any of these things is invisible in the academic world … you can have a good research but nobody will know.
To Néstor A. Montalván :
Many thanks for your detailed Answer as to why some publications may have very few, or even zero, Citations.
In reference to your last comment that: "you can have a good research but nobody will know."
Might I ask how research that nobody knows about, perhaps with zero Citations, could be classified as "good".
Majority of the academics judge papers based on the number of citation. The higher the citation more impact the paper creates. Citation should not be the criteria to judge the quality of paper. However, paper with zero citation may lose the momentum in the long run.
To Mohammad Hassan Shakil :
Many thanks for your challenging Answer.
Citations and the h-index are standard, though not infallible, measures of the perceived academic quality of research papers.
If not Citations, which alternative metric might be used?
"If not Citations, which alternative metric might be used? "
How much technology has been developed from the proposed science
To Syed Arif Kamal :
Many thanks for your technology-inspired Answer.
Citations and the associated h-index are measures of perceived academic research quality, not measures of how much technology has arisen from the published papers.
Patents are appropriate to protect innovative technological developments.
Hello Dr. Michael John McAleer
Science is a very wide ocean and reseach fields are so many
So the answer of your question is: Sure no , because citations means for example that the other researchers just work on the same field and point you searched before but by a different way , or using a different technique , or for any reason they just cite a part of your research.
So If your published paper has zero (or very few) citations, this does not make it irrelevant, or reduce its value at all
Hello Dr. Michael John McAleer
Papers should not be written to satisfy personal challenges, and to be published, read, discussed, and cited.
Papers should be written to satisfy the community needs and solve its problems, and make it better.
To Rizk Elazhary :
As you gave two separate and interesting Answers, I will respond to them separately.
"There's more than one way to skin a cat" means there can be many different ways to achieve a goal.
However, if one approach is cited while an alternative is not, has not the academic community decided which is relevant and which is not?
Just a thought.
To Rizk Elazhary :
You seem to disagree with the contents of the Question, namely:
"Papers are written to satisfy personal challenges, and to be published, read, discussed, and cited."
clearly preferring your own version:
"Papers should be written to satisfy the community needs and solve its problems, and make it better."
Satisfying community needs, solving its problems, and making the community better is what politicians and community leaders are supposed to do.
You seem to ignore what most academics strive for, which is to have their papers "published, read, discussed, and cited."
To Rizk Elazhary :
I am glad we can agree to disagree.
I respect your Answer, even though I might not agree with (all of) it.
Michael John McAleer
The difference of opinion and disagreement doesn't damage amicability
Kind Regards to you professor Michael.
To Michael John McAleer on his comment: "Might I ask how research that nobody knows about, perhaps with zero Citations, could be classified as" good ".
I give some examples, that perhaps explain my position:
- the research is about a specific region with good data and analysis and an adequate theoretical framework (the paper is good for that purpose).
- Theoretical - empirical approach of an unconventional model.
- A theoretical (or empirical) argument that today is not relevant and the future yes. The case of Eugene Garfield and the bibliometrics ... in 1960 it was only used by librarians, today in most sciences thanks to the explosion of access to databases for the use of the internet.
- Combination of the previous items by an unknown author in front of a recognized author.
Regards,
Nestor
To Néstor A. Montalván :
Many thanks for your detailed and informative Answer.
I agree that we cannot forecast future Citations with great confidence, but the examples you gave require a subjective judgment about what might be perceived as a "good" published paper.
Let me rephrase my previous query to you as follows:
"Might I ask how research that nobody knows about, perhaps with zero Citations, could be classified as relevant"?
Thank you.
@ Rizk Elazhary "Papers should be written to satisfy the community needs and solve its problems, and make it better."
This is ethics. Should we be doing research for research, which might even obliterate humanity (like developing next-generation atomic bombs) or make the world livable (like climate preservation, forest preservation, etc.), but that is not the domain of science, as science cannot make ethical decisions.
Zero Citations for a paper means that it is not acknowledged as being relevant for research purposes.
The existence of a published paper with zero Citations could inspire other academics to continue the research topic in the same or in a different direction.
This begs the Question as to why the paper is not cited.
Dear professor Syed Arif Kamal ,
(( Papers are written to satisfy personal challenges, and to be published, read, discussed, and cited.)) , this is what professor Michael John McAleer said in the description of the question , that is why I replied him by this (( Papers should be written to satisfy the community needs and solve its problems, and make it better.))
Kind Regards for both of you
To Rizk Elazhary :
My statement was objective in stating the reason why papers are written.
Your response was normative in stating the reason why papers should be written.
Syed Arif Kamal argued that your Answer was in the realm of ethics.
I think that each of these responses is reasonable, though not necessarily in agreement.
Dear Michael John McAleer ,
I am really very grateful for your perfect clarification professor
Thank you so much with my best regards
To Rizk Elazhary :
The pleasure is mine to respond to your concerted effort to Answer the Question.
Citation is very an important to measure the quality of paper, therefor do not forget readers also it is kind of citation.
To Fares F. Fares:
Thank you for your interesting and helpful Answer.
I agree that Reads are important as an indicator of the popularity of a published article, unpublished paper, and Q&A, but Recommendations might be a stronger, though indirect, form of Citations.
To Sajda Taha Mahmood :
Many thanks for your detailed explanation and Answer about transferring and citing texts in related work.
To Samir M. Ismail :
Many thanks for your clear and succinct Answer.
Generally, a research paper is required to be cited by the other researchers.
To Mahesh Kumar :
Many thanks for your clear and direct Answer, with which many researchers are bound to agree.
Mostly so unless there is compelling evidence that this work is pioneering and nobody else has done anything even remotely connected to this work (which is usually very unlikely). It is a good idea to make citations of other work that may be even peripherally connected to the current work in terms of methodology or past negative findings.
Citations as per written word or oral account are not paramount; but: relation to (literature )references and citation of other works is a key element of the scientific discourse, at least to understand the reference system and thought environment of the author=no man (scientist) is an island.
To Srini Vasan :
Many thanks for your detailed and helpful answer.
Pioneering work may indeed take time to be digested and cited.
No, never, citations are good, it takes time when your research work come on the surface of scientific community. If citations are not coming, it does not mean that we should under estimate that researcher.
Published your quality research, one day we all will have maximum citations.
Good luck researchers/scientists.
Keep going and don't be worry.
To Stephen I. Ternyik :
Many thanks for your clear and helpful explanation of the scientific discourse.
To Javed Iqbal :
Many thanks for your positive and encouraging Answer to all researchers.
To Javed Iqbal :
The pleasure is mutual.
Many thanks to you also.
A paper must comprise a literature section, in which the author discusses the related words, in, order to give the solutions proposed by other researchers that pave the way to highligh the contributions of his work. So, it is necessary that a work contains citations, at last for works included in literature section.
Besst regards
To Zouhair Chiba :
Many thanks for your helpful Answer regarding the literature review.
The Question was intended to attract attention to the published paper having zero Citations.
Not really because It could be cited later or may have not appeared in a journal that carries weight. This is why I view citations only as "indicators of quality and not the indicator".
To Chuck:
Many thanks for your insightful Answer.
Do you think that zero Citations is an indicative signal?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers