Paolo,
>What criterion was adopted in the search? The following famous paper,
>clearly of structural subject, is not on your list, but has 768 citations:
The search was on two words : "powder" AND "diffraction", occuring
either in the title or in the abstract, or in the keywords, or somewhere.
This means for the paper you mention, that "powder" AND "Diffraction"
were not in the title nor in the abstract (or the abstract is not in the Web of
Science), nor in the keywords (or the keywords are not in the WoS).
Anyway, this means that the authors did not considered powder diffraction
as something to be underlined in their paper. The list of most cited papers
in powder diffraction is not intended to be a list for most cited papers
about superconductors ;-). Moveover, was the powder diffraction job
difficult for all those highly cited papers on superconductors, or routine ?
I wonder if I should not delete them all ;;;-))). Nevertheless, I have
included that ancient hot paper you mentioned, thanks. Obviously, these
papers on superconductors are generally cited for the specific sample
studied more than for some brilliance in the powder diffraction methodology.
Being local contact at a big instrument is a quite good place when
fashion turns on new materials to be characterized. Have new neutron
powder patterns been done on the magnesium diboride superconductor
yet (or derivatives, if any), or B absorption will be a too big problem ?
Best regards,
Armel
