I find the question fairly irrelevant. First of all, there's a very significant lag time from downloading a paper to a published citation, so it's extremely difficult to find functional relationships between downloading and citations. Also, I'm sure that papers are downloaded much more frequently through library subscriptions and/or open journal access than through RG. Thus, RG downloads are just a small part of total downloads. Then, as most researchers, I'm sure, I download far more papers than I ever cite, and there are several reasons for that. The most obvious one is that I can't decide whether or not a specific paper is a suitable reference unless I first download it and read it. In most cases, I'll not cite the paper. I also download a lot of papers just to keep me up to date in areas outside the scope of my research and therefore it's highly unlikely that I'll ever cite these papers. I also download a lot of papers when researching background material for project applications, and similarly, I may never cite these papers, especially if I didn't get the grant ;-).

Just to reflect how complex the question of downloading vs citations is can I can take as an example my three most downloaded papers through RG. They have been downloaded 644, 563 and 211 times, respectively, and have been cited 43, 214 and 19 times, respectively. So there's not much of a correlation, and the reasons for this are complex, but also fairly obvious. The most downloaded paper is from 1998 and probably difficult for many to get through library access. The second most downloaded paper is a review in a popular research area and has thus been highly cited, whereas the third-most cited paper is quite recent (2011) and thus has only relatively few citations yet.

Dear Miranda,

This is a question of aim, intension, research activity of the downloading persons and that of time. One needs several years of experiences.

I find the question fairly irrelevant. First of all, there's a very significant lag time from downloading a paper to a published citation, so it's extremely difficult to find functional relationships between downloading and citations. Also, I'm sure that papers are downloaded much more frequently through library subscriptions and/or open journal access than through RG. Thus, RG downloads are just a small part of total downloads. Then, as most researchers, I'm sure, I download far more papers than I ever cite, and there are several reasons for that. The most obvious one is that I can't decide whether or not a specific paper is a suitable reference unless I first download it and read it. In most cases, I'll not cite the paper. I also download a lot of papers just to keep me up to date in areas outside the scope of my research and therefore it's highly unlikely that I'll ever cite these papers. I also download a lot of papers when researching background material for project applications, and similarly, I may never cite these papers, especially if I didn't get the grant ;-).

Just to reflect how complex the question of downloading vs citations is can I can take as an example my three most downloaded papers through RG. They have been downloaded 644, 563 and 211 times, respectively, and have been cited 43, 214 and 19 times, respectively. So there's not much of a correlation, and the reasons for this are complex, but also fairly obvious. The most downloaded paper is from 1998 and probably difficult for many to get through library access. The second most downloaded paper is a review in a popular research area and has thus been highly cited, whereas the third-most cited paper is quite recent (2011) and thus has only relatively few citations yet.

Hi Miranda,

It is true that some of the downloading person may not cite the downloaded documents immediately. They may download it as future personal reference or may even share it physically in printed forms to their colleagues or students. I guess it is hard to really monitor the real impact of the documents used. As for me, the willingness to share our work counts most and I must make sure the items that I share are of benefit to my audiences. I have done my part and do not expect in return. If the document is cited, that will be a bonus to me.

Andras and friends, thanks for sharing your thoughts, and for the good advice you have given. It confirms a few things that I have been thinking :)

It also depends on how applied your research is. An example is our freely downloadable  Indonesian-language book on how timber concessions can be managed for improved wildlife management. This was downloaded over 35,000 times in eight years, but has been cited only three times. Based on feedback the book has been used widely in teaching and training, and informed changes to forestry practices and strategies, including the initial concept of Restoration Ecosystems—a land use for restoring degraded timber concessions in Indonesia. It is a conservation success with near-zero academic impact. This also shows that research impact (citations) does not necessarily translate into practical impact.

I have a paper that has received over 55000 downloads since early last year (I have no idea what the record for ResearchGate downloads is), but still no citations. I am very pleased with this as it shows there is interest in the subject, and that was precisely what I wanted to achieve. If there are no citations in this time frame, then it may be that such an extensive review takes time to respond to or that the review itself answered many questions and new questions will take time to formulate and respond to. It would be great to have citations, but isn't the aim of science to disseminate your information rather than get notoriety in citations? The paper I'm referring to was gagged by those in power and so a virtually anonymous ResearchGate became my only means of advertising.