What hides behind the bibliometrics

Citation index is a funny thing. I was contemplating over it yesterday as I got some notification that someone had cited an aurochs paper we wrote ages ago. I don’t know how this works, but there seems to be various services that notifies you by email when someone cites you, and you don’t have to sign up for them (cause I have never signed up for such service). Anyway, I recalled the paper that was just cited, and as far as I remember my publications, it is the one where it is now obvious that we drew the wrong conclusion from the limited data we had (all of us who have been in the field long enough will have one or two of those).

A well cited paper…

Skärmavbild 2020-02-21 kl. 11.01.25

As I was curious about how that old paper was doing, I logged onto my Google scholars to check this particular paper out, and it proved to be my 9th most cited paper (I have some 115 peer-reviewed papers by now, even if Google scholars seems to think that I have 151). We corrected the interpretation with a follow-up article, to get it right, but that one is among my least cited papers. This highlights an interesting aspect of the citation index. A paper where I (and the rest of the world doing cattle domestication) think we were a little bit hasty in our conclusion is contradicted over and over, and thereby it is generating loads of points to my citation index and to my h-index and to my CV. An interesting strategy for raising once bibliometrics…