What would be the point of publishing research that wasn't cited? Having many publications that are routinely ignored is not a useful path to follow.

Fully agree with David - Sunny. Citation isn't just a 'numbers game'; it's a reflection of how the academic community view the quality of your research and how much it potentially impacts practice. On the other hand, if you publish 'as many as you can' quality outputs then, given the correct strategy i.e. careful targeting of established and ranked journals, that should naturally lead to even more citation and impact. This is another argument against submitting to known predatory journals. What is the point? Okay - you may get a 'publication' to list on your CV - but no-one benefits apart from the predators.

No body can guarantee a paper will be cited since it is not in the hands of the author. What the author can ensure however that the quality of research is good and that it is published in a good journal/conf. proc. (these two factors are somewhat interlinked). Good articles are expected to be cited sooner or later, unless it is published in some obscure journal that nobody reads.

In some ways, this fundamental question boils down to how your school lvalues scholarly work. what criteria are used for promotion and tenure? Do they only look at the number of publications? Do they analyze the quality of the journals in which you publish? How do they incorporate the h-index in their analysis?

Fundamentally, we should seek to publish research and conceptual papers that are valuable to others. If we say to ourselves "nobody is going to be able to make use of this but I need more publications" we are not really serving the discipline. But I am afraid that too many researchers DO take this attitude.

As a researcher you should strive to prodice high quality papers and publish them in high quality journals...although thus is not a general "prescriprion", it usually works.

Sunny Chi Lik Au I agree with Dean Whitehead (Citation isn't just a 'numbers game )

regards

Great question Sunny Sunny Chi Lik Au , and Michael W. Marek put the right insight to it. Sometimes, even if you work hard to serve the community and publish a really good work in a great journal, you may see yourself behind others because of the policy that your university follow in evaluating people.

Sadly, even in academic environment, you always see some people playing around rules to get benefits and promotions; the worst part of it, when these people become in authority and start modifying the rules for their favor.

Under the game rule of h index, should we focus to publish researches on similar topic, or wide variety of topics across fields?

Also, is fundamental basic science research more citable than clinical research?

Do institutions to date consider H-index, as evidence of the quality of publications? At least my university doesn't bother H-index.