The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
10:26am on Wednesday, 2nd September, 2020:
Comment
Unusually among academics, I actually read all the papers I cite in my writings. Most don't, however, especially when referring to papers that are used to signpost the context of their research. Basically, an academic refers to paper X as a shorthand for what it is they're discussing; the reader, who may also not have read paper X, then understands where the author is coming from without having to endure a lengthy explanation.
These anchor papers can pick up a lot of citations. I know this, because one of my own papers (Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players who Suit MUDs) is such a paper. According to Researchgate, as of this morning it has been cited 1,467 times; Google Scholar puts it at 2,805; Academia.edu claims to know 3,380 references to it. The highest number I've seen attributed to it was over 15,000, but I take that with a pinch of salt.
Normally, this paper is referenced on average twice a week. It does go up and down — once one week, three times another week — but it's fairly consistent. Some of my colleagues have papers with much higher citation counts than this, but for a games paper it's pretty good.
Recently, however, it's gone down to maybe one reference every two weeks. This coincides so well with the Covid-19 pandemic that I'm assuming that's the cause: fewer conferences means fewer publications, so fewer citations. Also, more non-research work means less research means fewer publications. However, it could be that the paper has finally fallen out of favour, or that nobody is looking at player types any more.
I'm sure that someone, somewhere, is currently writing a paper on this phenomenon, if they haven't already.
Latest entries.
Archived entries.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2020 Richard Bartle (richard@mud.co.uk).