|
|
|
|
|
by anjc
2181 days ago
|
|
> they aggressively re-publish their existing results. Very low read- and citation counts are common implications. I think it's generally the opposite to a great degree. Some people spend their PhD and postdoc doing one large piece of work, overly concerned about its rigour/correctness/validity, eventually publishing just one paper that they're happy with (perhaps a summary of their thesis). Others publish smaller pieces of work frequently, at conferences, workshops etc. In this time the latter will have built up a public academic profile, while the former may be essentially anonymous to the field. This will be reflected in greatly more citations and reads for the latter. You could argue that there's value to the former approach, but if you can't disseminate your work effectively - i.e. nobody knows that you or your work exist - then it's useless (imo). |
|