Not even self-cites?!?!?

Apr 13 2015 Published by under Careers

An interesting study of publications in cardiovascular journals is coming out soon in the journal Circulation. The abstract seems to tell the story. In the decade 1997-2007 15.6% of the publications had zero citations after five years. Not even self-cites. 46.0% were considered "poorly cited" (defined as having ≤5 cites).

Is there any reason to believe these numbers wouldn't apply to all biomedical science beyond "my sub-field is special"?

7 responses so far

  • Zen Faulkes says:

    No particular reason to expect wide variations in discipline.

    But I'm not sure that the authors' claim that poorly cited papers mean that there are "inefficiencies" in the research system. Sometimes, the most efficient thing to do is to ignore something. We ignore original articles for settle science all the time.

    • odyssey says:

      I agree on the "inefficiency" thing. Not cited isn't the same as unread.

      The lack of even self-cites though...

      • drugmonkey says:

        Maybe the authors lost their funding?

      • Rheophile says:

        I feel like 15% is a reasonable number of papers for the categories of "fuck this project and this whole question, let me publish this and never again think about it," and "My employment terms require me to publish a paper to get a pay step, but I don't really have anything to say, and feel kind of embarrassed about it."

  • Namesaste_Ish says:

    Seems obvious that the heart is an unimportant field. Next.

  • odyssey says:

    I would have thought 15% is too much for those categories.