I do not think the number of quotations reflects the quality of a paper. In fact, the number of citations also depends on the number of researchers working on the same topic or similar arguments.

papers in better journals get cited more, but it's not necessarily the best work that gets into the 'best' journals; and of course if you publish something great but maybe ahead of the research field then it takes time for citations to come in and may for several years receive very few citations until it's re-discovered

I was an experimental radiation physicist (now retired), and two of my most elaborate experimental studies were published in one of the most prestigious physics journal "The Physical Review". However, my work (done with less efforts and expenses) of formulating an empirical equation* for the quantity called "extrapolated range of electrons" (published in the journal "Nuclear Instruments and Methods", the impact factor of which is smaller than that of "The Physical Review") is the most cited paper. The reason is probably that the extrapolated range paper includes a useful equation for measurements and applications of ionizing radiations.

Note

* Such a work is classified as theoretical, but theoreticians do seldom make empirical formulas — they make theoretical formulas starting from the first principles without relying on experimental data.

Thank you very much for your interesting story Tatsuo. It seems I am not the only one with similar experiences:)

I do not think the number of quotations reflects the quality of a paper. In fact, the number of citations also depends on the number of researchers working on the same topic or similar arguments.

My best paper in my own judgement are not the most cited. i believe that citations have to do with the number of people who make use of the researc, the visibility of the research and the subject area where the research work is done. Philippa

 I have a similar story. Citations seem to be with old papers, because it takes time to get the results known, I think.

My best contribution to "society", if one can call it as such, are my historical maps which have received little attention among RG readers (which are concentrating in science not much in history). In another social network, however, those maps have received much attention, because the readers in that group are mostly in history and related topics.

My most cited paper is not the "most innovative". But it is very didactic in explaining the basics of a specific subject and also introduces a new contribution. I guess it is my favourite one.

I think that my most cited paper is relatively easy to be understood and imitated by a larger audience. In this aspect, it needs to be broad in content, relatively easy methods, something like that.

A most cited paper is not necessarily the best paper of an author. There are several other factors that determine how a paper gets cited. 

Kwara: Exactly, maybe the answers to this question signals that :)

And, the contribution from Eduardo Corrêa Gonçalves tempts me to rephrase my question: Is your favourite paper the one that is most cited? ('best' is hard to measure or what?)

Also, in my opinion, a very wise contribution by Peter Breuer - thanks Peter, your views seem close to mine :)

hello everybody,

Interesting question, I post me history:

During my beginnings and my first publications (being a student with little experience, but a lot of enthusiasm), I wrote an MS (supported by directors) and it was send to several recognized journal with Impact factor, however an editor indicated to me: "...the subject is not for a larger audience...", I suggest send it to a local journal....

Well, following this suggestion, This MS was published by a local journal (at the time a journal without impact which today has an impact) and has been one of the most cited, so, I guess it is one of my favourite one

Today with more expertise, I guess at the end is the subject, the scope and the form of presenting the information that allows to obtain "popularity" or not.

Best regards,

Omar

to me a paper should not be called best because of it number of citations. most authors are involved in self citation

I think yes

The more original the topic is, the more difficult it is to judge for others. Be original but only reasonably - in small steps :-))

I'd cite a paper for one of 2 reasons:

I do not expect everybody to follow this scheme, but considering citations: rating your papers according to the criteria above: are you still surprised? 

 U. DREHER: I agree that ideally your 2 reasons ought to be satisfied by any reasonably serious academic paper. But, as you of course are aware of, neither goodness and clarity nor concise overview of some topics are absolutely defined. On the contrary, what I might find very clear, you might find unclear. In addition: sometimes you are looking for a specific method, equation etc. and in many situations you 2 bullet points are not necessarily satisified. 

@ Kjetil

This is how reality works. I've also been cited without formal citation. I can live with that: having some impact on the work of others is more than most will achieve. From time to time creating something superior or completely new is satisfying in itself, whether acknowledged by others or not. OK - acknowledgement is fine and caresses the ego. But this is a non-mandatory plus :)

Regards

@ U. Dreher --> very nice comment, really! It's always nice to be un-formally cited :-) Cheers!

In my case, the most cited articles are, indeed, in the best journals, or journals with the highest impact factor. Nevertheless, other good quality articles found in journals that are not so "well-known" or written in Spanish are no longer adequately disclosed or are no longer considered in the great works that publish "metadata". However, the use of the Impact Factor is being discarded in the industrialized countries where, to cite an example, up to 40% of the articles appearing in Nature are never mentioned, despite the high Factor of Impact of that journal (Dimitrov, Kaveri & Bayry, 2010, Mayor, 2010). Taking this into account, the real impact of the Revista Biología Tropical (Costa Rica) for example, would be according to these articles that are ignored, 15.57 and not 0.544 as it appears in the Science Citation Index (Monge-Nájera, 2014). According to this author, based on this simple numerical analysis, the same conclusion is reached, among others, by the journals Nature and Science, and authors such as Stephen Curry of Imperial College London: there is an ethical duty to eliminate the current use Of the Impact Factor, which for years has been uncritically accepted and has affected the assessment of authors, journals and institutions (Curry, 2012; Alberts, 2013;

Nature Materials, 2013).

Monge-Nájera, J. 2014. La invalidez del Factor de Impacto como indicador del impacto de las revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Revista de Biología Tropical, Vol. 62, Núm. 1, Mayo, 2014, pp. 9-13

The most cited depend on the popularity of that particular subject.

In some topics it takes years before people catch up to the importance. One example is the history of localization theory, after Andersons original publication.

My most cited I do not consider the best.

There are very good papers, for example in Spanish, that are not cited in some statistical systems of cites but the reason can be diverse. I think that the time makes what an article is recognized. Without doubt the fact of being accepted for publication is a sign of its value.

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Bibliometrics: Is your most cited work your best?

John P. A. Ioannidis, Kevin W. Boyack, Henry Small, Aaron A. Sorensen

 & Richard Klavans, 29 October 2014

After half a century of citation indices, several intriguing questions remain. Are the most highly cited papers the most important ones? Does science make progress mostly through evolution or through revolution? Are these two processes mutually exclusive or complementary, and which do high citations most reflect? Are surprising findings difficult to publish?

Highly cited papers are nodes in the network of the dissemination and discussion of scientific information. But citation counts alone cannot reveal why a paper is considered so important as to attract repeated mention by other researchers. To contribute to these debates, we surveyed the most-cited authors of biomedical research for their views on their own influential published work1, 2, 3.

We got some intriguing feedback. The vast majority of this elite group felt that their most important paper was indeed one of their most-cited ones. Yet they described most of their chart-topping work as evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Best of the best

We listed the 400 most-cited biomedical scientists in the period 1996–20114. We selected each author's ten most-cited papers (adjusted for publication year) published in 2005–08, and asked them to score the papers (on a scale of 0 to 100) in six dimensions."....

Please, goto the link to read the rest of  this interesting article that related to the thread......

http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-is-your-most-cited-work-your-best-1.16217

No

Noooooooooooo

Yes,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0096300313000672

NO

A paper may be judged best by it author or authors for so many reasons. This bias platform does not project it meeting needs of problem other researchers intend to solve.The relevance of a paper is established if it forms part of solution to their problems.  The multiple application  of such paper surely will promote the citation.  versatility of a paper, may encourage its citation.