I'm not sure if there's a word or phrase for a "reverse bibliography", but that's what I'm looking to put on my website - a list of other papers that have cited my own work. The goal is to show that my work has had influence and has spread beyond just the paper itself. Is this common in academia, or is it only common to list one's own papers?
-
13How about creating a google scholar account? Then people can easily look up that information.– ThomasMay 2, 2016 at 20:38
Add a comment
|
3 Answers
For any well established research, they will usually have quite a large number of citations, which would make a "cited by" section would be exhausting to maintain and large beyond meaningful readability. A better route is to link to an database that actually engages in curating ones citations, such as Google Scholar.
I do, however, sometimes see people maintaining a collection of notable articles in non-scientific media. These are not normally picked up by citation databases and are valuable for showing that work is having impact outside of the scientific community, as well as (sometimes) providing a nice introduction to the work.
-
-
1Regarding "maintaining a collection of notable articles in non-scientific media", I know my advisor keeps a section similar to this in which he lists TV, and radio interviews conducted with him.– The GuyMay 3, 2016 at 14:49
To expand on @jakebeal's answer: If you can still list all citations you have ever received, then the number of citations you have received is so small that the attempt reflects negatively. Most reasonably well established scientists have thousands of citations to their credit. It becomes impossible to list them all. The list also often grows by a dozen a week, more than you probably want to keep up.
As already noted, the solution lies in linking to a referencing service such as google scholar or MathSciNet.
answered May 3, 2016 at 2:13
-
9I agree with linking to a referencing service, but this is somewhat field dependent. The median number of citations for a pure math paper is 0, and the very top journals have IFs around 3. There are National Academy members with "only" a few hundred total citations. It is a significant (though also very noisy) indicator for someone applying for a tenure-track job to have been cited, and even more significant if they've been cited more than a dozen times (though subfields vary quite a bit in both paper writing and citation practices, so interpretation requires care). May 3, 2016 at 2:23
-
3A dozen a week means in 2 years you get > 1000 citations... isn't that a heck of a lot? Sounds like a rarity even among professors... May 3, 2016 at 2:34
-
1@AlexanderWoo -- one could argue that if you only have a few hundred citations over a lifetime of research, then you're doing things nobody cares about. The same could be said about the median pure math paper. But that's a discussion not worth getting into. May 3, 2016 at 11:43
-
1@Mehrdad -- I don't know. I got 438 citations last year (scholar.google.com/…). This is a reasonable number, but I could probably list 2 dozen colleagues within 5 minutes who are significantly above that. May 3, 2016 at 11:45
-
1@ChristianClason I think that if you choose to refer people to Google Scholar see who you've been cited by, it's clear incumbent upon you to curate your page.– jakebealMay 3, 2016 at 14:56
Let turn this round....
People reading your website may be doing so because they are interested in your research topics. Therefore assuming you list your papers by topic, it could be very helpful for you to also list papers that expand on your papers in interesting ways, including explaining how they expand on your work in a few sentences.
