If I publish my research in a respected journal and I get cited a few times in less than a year (cited as part of the literature review and background of my field), does this mean my work is a "contribution to knowledge"?

  • 4
    In what context? Who is going to evaluate this (these might be better people to ask)? Also, I am not sure why being cited is particularly relevant. Once it is published (assuming it is a piece of research), it has contributed to knowledge. – Tobias Kildetoft Aug 24 '17 at 17:23
  • 1
    in the context of a phd viva. if the examiner question if the work is a contribution to knowledge or not – user58840 Aug 24 '17 at 17:47

What journal?

In principle, regardless of citations, anything accepted to be published in a journal should be a contribution of knowledge. There are some exceptions to this, like survey papers, but for the most part publications should have a novel contribution.

The citations help measure the impact of the contribution i.e. how relevant or useful it is in the field. But an uncited, published paper should still contribute knowledge.

And, of course, if it was published in a predatory journal, it may not contain a knowledge contribution. Citations make this less likely, unless the citing papers themselves are also in predato journals.

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.