3

I wish to properly cite the amount of times a paper has been cited according to Google Scholar. However, I couldn't find a proper answer to this question.

The paper in question is:

Blei, David M., Andrew Y. Ng, and Michael I. Jordan. "Latent dirichlet allocation." the Journal of machine Learning research 3 (2003): 993-1022.

Hansen, S., McMahon, M., & Prat, A. (2014) note that

LDA is widely used (...) and has been cited over 8,000 times

But they cite no source! What is the proper source to cite here?

My first thought was something like this:

LDA is widely used (...) and has been cited over 10,000 since its publication, a search on Google Scholar reveals (Google Scholar, date).

edit: I e-mailed my advisor and ended up citing Hansen et al. (2014) saying that the paper had already been cited 8000 times. Not really a satisfying answer ... alas ..

  • In addition to Bill Barth's answer, the Google Scholar citation numbers can be terribly inaccurate in my experience, so I don't know what the meaning of this number would be anyway. – Kimball May 18 '15 at 0:27
9

I don't find such citations to citation counts very helpful in reading an article. Assuming such numbers are reasonably accurate, they only represent a snapshot of the popularity of a technique at the time you wrote your article. I would recommend simply saying that it is a popular technique and leaving it at that.

  • 7
    Maybe field-dependent, but personally, I'd find the citation of two or three otherwise unrelated papers from a diverse range of topics that indeed do use the technique in question much more convincing and interesting than a citation of a citation count (and also preferrable to just claiming it's "popular" without backing that up somehow). – O. R. Mapper May 10 '15 at 14:05
  • 1
    @O.R.Mapper, agreed. Citing papers that cite the original is also a great idea. – Bill Barth May 10 '15 at 17:13
  • I e-mailed my advisor and she told me to cite the paper that cites that is as been cited over 8000 times. So that's what I did, although I did not leave satisfied. – Rainymood May 16 '15 at 16:41
  • " it is a popular^[citation needed] technique" :-) – David Roberts May 21 '15 at 3:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.