Given that an increasing amount of material is going into supplementary data, it would be better if the citation indexers could be persuaded to count supplementary references. I see no reason why they shouldn't
Phil
On 17 Nov 2010, at 16:06, Victor Lamzin wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I would like to bring to your attention the recent Editorial in Acta Cryst D (http://journals.iucr.org/d/issues/2010/12/00/issconts.html), which highlights the long-standing issue of under-citation of papers published in the IUCr journals. The Editorial, having looked at the papers published in 2009 in Nature, Science, Cell and PNAS, concluded:
>
> 'almost half of all references to publications in IUCr journals end up being published in the supplementary material only... Not only does this mean that the impact factor of IUCr journals should be higher, but also that the real overall numbers of citations of methods papers are much higher than what is reported, for instance, by the Web of Science'
>
> Although this topic may seem to concern mostly methods developers, I think the whole research community will only benefit from more fair credit that we all give to our colleagues via referencing their publications. What do you think?
>
> Victor
|