As per my idea, always try to publish articles in OPEN ACCESS journals.
Many researchers, particularly of developing countries, are not having sufficient money to purchase articles. Institutional link is also not available to many of them.
They get open access articles and cite these most of the time.
Citation is also not always a very clean process. Many Big houses keep some free journal perhaps just to increase number of citation.
Reading is interest-based while citation is based on relatedness. So, you don't need to worry about it. Many people don't have that much of reads from all of their publications! So, just enjoy it and move on.
As per my idea, always try to publish articles in OPEN ACCESS journals.
Many researchers, particularly of developing countries, are not having sufficient money to purchase articles. Institutional link is also not available to many of them.
They get open access articles and cite these most of the time.
Citation is also not always a very clean process. Many Big houses keep some free journal perhaps just to increase number of citation.
"Reading is interest-based while citation is based on relatedness. So, you don't need to worry about it. Many people don't have that much of reads from all of their publications! So, just enjoy it and move on. "
I have a similar problem. One of my publications exceeded 6000 reads but got only one citation. I think researcher only refer to the original major authors in your publications and forget about yours. To me, this is the main justification. Best regards.
I think taking information from an article with no reference to the writer of the article but only citing the major authorities in it is an act of plagiarism.
In addition to the many nice answers, there could be a very special situation. For example, if you completely solved a question, then perhaps it is very interesting but not inspiring further work.
Not sure which year your paper published, but if it is published in recent years, it may be the citation time-lag results, but if not, I think there is a citation bias to highly cited papers rather than none highly cited ones. Also there is another explanation that this article is not useful to current researchers.
Informative discussion. I agree with Dr. Hazim Al Dilaimy . A possible reason could be that people have used the information from your research papers in their studies; however, they haven't cited you.
Agree with the many astute responses, up-to-date. I would only add that it does happen that reads of an article may accumulate without many (or any in this case) citations if the title (or certain words in it) seem interesting/relevant to others, but once opened the readers assess that the substance of the study/article does not relate directly to the readers' research (or add new findings to cite), unfortunately. Not that this applies to the article in question in this RG discussion, but it is something to consider in general (that is, word choices in a title have sometimes unanticipated consequences so much care should be taken in crafting an appropriate title).
very relevant question for each author. each researcher should refer to new publications, because they often use the old reference.Journal editors sometimes require 50% of new literature. But not all. Need to ask your friends and colleagues to refer to your work. This will increase the rating of your institution of higher education. We here must help each other. Go start..........
You are most welcomed. I really appreciate your interest in research while you are working in an environment different from universities and institutions.
Thank you Sir! Its been what I have always wanted to do. While I am not associated with any university/ institution/ company/ organization, I raise money myself for my research activities. Its heart warming to see my efforts being appreciated. Thank you so much.
I know only a few who continue to do research on their own expenses just to contribute something to Science and also for finding the answers of those questions which give them sleepless nights. Now, the number just got increased... Wishing you all the best.
We write papers so they'll be read. Citations are nice but secondary. So congratulations on having so many reads! I'm sure you've influenced at least some of those readers, which is the way science advances.
In most cases, operates the principle of San Mateo. According to Merton "Principle of No Authority; fundamental principle that states that the importance and relevance of a particular statement, theory or scientific work is independent of the importance, relevance or status of its author. "Thus," the rich get richer and the poor get poorer »An equal situation occurs in the academy. Greetings. Best of luck.
May be title of paper is well formulated and attractive, but content is not appropriate for citing in most of cases. I agree with Clinton DeW. Van Siclen that paper anyway has influence on readers if they open it and even look through.
I published an article in an open access journal and got more than 6000 reads and 5000 downloads but only one citation. It seems that citation is only made to the major references and authorities I used in my article.
I have also experienced the same effect as described by Hazim Al Dilaimy
by some of my published research. I had not thought of the reason he asserts for it, but his conjecture is certainly a plausible reason. Other thoughts?
In my opinion most of the people refer publications to attain information only. In that case, they will not cite publication. Similar thing might have happened for your publication.
Through my humble ideas, I can add that unfortunately the main databases - having high impact- have not count on the google or other citations. If there was an intelligent track system in which more valid data was counted, the number of citations could be increased.
“90% of papers published in academic journals are never cited.” The uncited rate is also sensitive to other factors: how long a window is used to check for citations (e.g., 5 years); when the article whose cites are being counted was published (2000s or 1990s); and what counts as a citation. The details of whether to include self-citations, non-academic articles, and so on, also matter.