Our review paper in Biofilm received more that 30 citations in about one year. The paper has more than 110 references. It is obvious that the authors of the 30+ articles have opted to cite a ready-made material. Had they use our review article to trace the original articles, there is no way it will be cited this much. Shouldn't reviewers advice authors to cite original papers? Is this not what is expected of reviewers?
Desta - I assume that your review paper is good quality and followed a rigorous search strategy anf appraisal - which would be one of the reasons for direct citation. The general purpose of review papers is to accurately articulate the current state of affiars of a topic - up to the time the review was conducted. Those that access it, hope that the rigorous 'leg work' has been done for them and will directly cite the review with that expectation.
I agree with with Dean. The point of a review is to summarise research, hopefully come to a conclusion about the cumulative effect of previous studies to advance the topic on which a review is written. There are circumstances in which you might take issue with this but they relate to disciplinary differences. In the humanities or social sciences you might take issue with the a review that advanced a particular perspective and go back to original resources to demonstrate a different point of view is possible. I am guessing you are working in STEM where this wouldn't normally be the case. BW Matt
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Citations