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
