A look at my own publications

Google Scholar is quite a fantastic tool; I recently (20/5/2021) glanced at my own profile and decided to have a closer look at the 100 of my papers that have been cited most frequently. The list below shows these ‘top 100’; in the 1st column is the reference (title of the article, authors, journal). In the MIDDLE column are the numbers of times each paper has been cited (if you click on it, you see the articles that cited the paper in question), and the far-right column tells you the year of publication.

Here we go:

What my analysis of these data suggests is the following:

1. Only relatively few articles (n=8) are in the ‘top 100’ that I published before I took up the Exeter post starting full-time research into so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).
2. Despite the fact that in any such analysis older papers are at a significant advantage over newer articles, the vast majority of these 100 papers are relatively recent.
3. Very few of our clinical trials are in the ‘top 100’, even though I did publish well over 50 during my career.
4. Systematic reviews dominate by far and amount to 49 of the ‘top 100’.
5. Even some of my ‘letters to the editor’ did make it into the ‘top 100’.
6. Six of the 100 papers are surveys.
7. As to the SCAM topics, most articles are on herbal medicine (n=39), followed by acupuncture (13), manual therapies (4), and homeopathy (2).
8. A total of 21 of the papers have their main focus on safety issues.
9. The vast majority of the papers are co-authored by more than one member of my team.
10. A total of 22 articles were produced in collaboration with researchers who were not members of my team.
11. Seventeen papers were single-author papers by myself.
12. Even though I certainly did publish a lot in journals specialized in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), only very few of these articles made it into this list.

There are many things that I find interesting in all this. Perhaps just a few points:

• The two SCAM areas in which I have published many articles and do get a lot of flack for what I have written are homeopathy and chiropractic. Surprisingly, not many of these papers are in the ‘top 100’. I am not sure whether this is meaningful and if so how I should interpret this.
• The fact that hardly any papers published in SCAM journals made the ‘top 100’ is interesting but not surprising. It means that researchers who want to see their work cited – and who doesn’t? – should avoid such journals (there are, of course, other reasons as well for avoiding such journals).
• The fact that even ‘letters to the editors’ can get cited so frequently seems unexpected but I find it encouraging.
• Collaboration with researchers who are not from one’s own team can be, in my experience, cumbersome but it is worth it and often fruitful.
• If you asked me, is there a correlation between the quality of a paper and the frequency with which it is cited, I’d have to say NO.
• If you asked me, is there a correlation between the importance of a paper and the frequency with which it is cited, I’d have to say NO again.