3 ms·
As a academic researcher, here is my takeaway: European scientist will be much likely to see my publications under Elsevier and therefore much less likely to ci
by jostmey 8y ago
As a academic researcher, here is my takeaway: European scientist will be much likely to see my publications under Elsevier and therefore much less likely to cite it. Going forward, I will avoid publishing under Elsevier (even in those journals with a high impact factor) out of fear that the work will not be cited in the future
- ur-whale 8y agoSounds like what matters to you most is how many citations you get. Color me naive, I thought research was about doing cool science, no?
- Vinnl 8y agoThat is definitely not the only consideration for pretty much every researcher. Being able to keep doing it is another, for example, and in today's world, citations help you do that.
- wsy 8y agoPart of good science is to communicate the results of your research. It is after all the scientific community, not individual people doing "cool science".
- jostmey 8y agoYes, I am in research to do cool science. I write the papers because I want to do cool science. But then I have to decide where to submit those papers. At this point, the choice has nothing to do with science, so I am careful to pick journals where my papers get the most visibility in the hope that this will increase my chances of remaining funded
- natechols 8y agoElaborating on the above, everyone gets into research to do cool science. But once you get there, you need to worry about funding, promotion, and other messy details of career maintenance. I've watched many excellent scientists, genuinely brilliant and thoughtful people, spend an inordinate amount of time on this, because they all know if they don't, they won't be able to continue doing science indefinitely.
- scott_s 8y agoThe point of publishing is to be read. If you don't think people will read your work in a given venue, it doesn't make sense to publish there.
- ufo 8y agoIn order to do cool science you need to get funding. To get paid you need to get your citation metrics up.
- ur-whale 8y agoGiven the number of downvotes, I'd say I hit a really sore nerve. Citation-based scientific success is deeply wrong, and you'all know it. The whole "we don't have a choice but to play that game to get funding" doesn't make it any more right. It also looks like none of the answer stopped for a second to reflect on how broken a system relying on citations controlled by the elsevier of this world is. The quality of the science should speak for itself. How much research gets cited should be a consequence of that quality period. The feedback loop is counter-productive, and worse, easy to game or take advantage of.