It is interesting seeing what papers got the most references. I'm only a named author on my top paper, from a conference but the journal paper I had published as first author a few months back has no references. Hopefully that will change soon! Also, one of my RSPSoc conference papers isn't even listed - it was on UAVs. One of my other RSPSoc papers is listed, and it's my oldest and probably worst paper because I had little or no results in it as I was just starting the PhD then. It also had a result in it that I disproved in the next paper!! But it got referenced, and then someone else robbed that persons references list, and someone else robbed theirs, and now it's my best performing paper. Some people citing me clearly haven't read my papers, and I don't mean they misunderstood a complex element of it - I mean they had used it totally out of context (i don't care, I'll take it!).
It's also interesting the slow stepping of the references, not a hot topic by the looks of things.
papers published in 2012 - 3 citations
..............................2011 - 4
..............................2010- 5
I didn't know any of this yesterday but now I do and it bothers me, I want more!! Especially once i heard h-index was used in a recent interview shortlisting process. So I looked online for ways to improve your h-index.
Their top tip? Self reference! Slip in as many as you can. I have referenced my own work in the past as I thought it was required, paper 1,2,3 etc were steps on the road to paper 4. Referencing them was required, or I would have to either included the explanations again in paper 4 or else just ignore a gaping hole in the knowledge!
I can see how self referencing would be taking advantage of, it seems a bit shoddy...
No comments:
Post a Comment