If a publication has a massive number of reads and zero citation, what is the meaning of that? does this reflect the low quality of the publication ?
Remember that "citations" as counted by ResearchGate only reflect those articles which have been uploaded to RG.
Google Scholar will give a better tabulation of citations, I think. For me, Google Scholar lists more than twice as many citations as RG does, but both have a very close h-index calculation.
Remember that "citations" as counted by ResearchGate only reflect those articles which have been uploaded to RG.
Google Scholar will give a better tabulation of citations, I think. For me, Google Scholar lists more than twice as many citations as RG does, but both have a very close h-index calculation.
I agree with Marek, but if you ask in general, this situation might indicate that title & abstract sound interesting, but the full paper is not ..
None of the citation indices are completely accurate, but I agree that Google citations tends, for newer researchers, to be more complete than RG. However, considering the substantial lag time between reading and citation in a new publication, I would caution you to be patient. It takes more than a decade, in my view, to determine the quality of a publication based on citation counts.
Lectures et même citations en grand nombre signifient seulement qu'un article correspond à un champ de recherche partagé par de nombreux chercheurs (voire à la mode). Elles n'apportent en tant que statistiques aucune preuve de la qualité du travail. Il faudrait au minimum pour ça voir qui lit et qui cite, dans quelle revue, etc.
De plus, une recherche de qualité trop originale, id est hors champ à la mode, peut n'être guère citée, ni même lue...
Many reads only indicate an appealing title and possibly a good abstract. There is no guarantee for that the paper really is read. Citations will require an active reader working in the same field and where the paper is found useful for own research. As pointed out, only papers uploaded to RG will be counted.
See this excellent article and statistics on READS and CITATIONS!
We looked at what it takes for scientists to get 500 or more reads on one of their publications on ResearchGate.
We love to see our members share their achievements on social media, and we can understand why they're proud - achievements are more than just numbers. They represent the hard work and skill that goes into producing quality research that people want to read. That’s why we wanted to share with you what it takes – on average – to get a publication with 500 or more reads...
Scientists had an average of 653 citations with a median of 101 before they got their first publication with 500 or more reads. 24 percent have between 0-199 citations before getting their first 500 read publication.
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/the-how-and-when-of-your-first-breakthrough-publication
The assumption I have is more reads more citations. More reads less citations probably means the article is not good or the level of the people reading the article is not high enough
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication