I am applying for a job and I have to submit (among other) the list of all my citations (excluding autocitations of course). I wonder how the list should look like. Should it look like references at the end of any scientific paper? I guess not since then you could not tell which papers of yours were cited?! Is there any standard way how to do this?


The aim of the document is to have a verifiable version of your citation count, which is commonly used for filtering out some applicants in an application process. It should provide a list of your papers together with their citation counts, and it needs to back this up by data (such that it is verifiable). This means listing for each of your papers which other paper cites it.

There seems to be only one reasonable way to structure such a document, to first list all of your papers with the citation counts, and to then use seperate sections for each of your papers with the biliography entries for the papers citing your paper. In this way, you give the information that is mainly useful for verifying your citation count later in the document, while giving the important information first.

I doubt that there is any "official" information on how to format such a document. After all, scientists know that citation counts are a bad way to evaluate a researcher's output. So there is no urge to stress the importance of these documents by providing additional formatting requirements.


Like @DCTLib states, I also don't think there is an official format. See this link, which I also mention in the comments, for a fairly good discussion of this general topic.

Web services like Google Scholar may be the best solution. By providing a link to your Google Scholar profile (or similar), anyone can look at your citation counts or anything else in real time. This also has the benefit of not being overwhelming or confusing to follow, which is a real concern if you try to print or list explicitly all of your citations and the citing papers (especially if there are many).

  • The thing is that Google Scholar grossly overapproximates your citation count (by counting self-citations, citations from lecture slides, ect.) - sometimes this may be sufficient, but using the result as part of your application looks a bit suspicious, as it is very easy to improve your "Google H-Index".
    – DCTLib
    Oct 5 '15 at 14:16
  • Fair point. If someone was really concerned about that, it's fairly easy to get an "adjusted" count by seeing how many citations the person has, then limiting the count to those published by the author. Once you have those 2 numbers, it's an easy subtraction, although if you're interested in article-level counts (instead of global counts), this may be a tedious process. Overall, I think this is a tedious task no matter how you slice it. Oct 5 '15 at 14:34

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.