Publication Speed: Most Cited Papers of the Decade

Mitch posted on C&EN a list of the most cited papers from the last ten years:

  1. grapheneElectric Field Effect in Atomically Thin Carbon Films. Science, 17,793 citations.
  2. Iron-Based Layered Superconductor La[O1-xFx]FeAs (x = 0.05−0.12) with Tc = 26 K. JACS, 6,435 citations.
  3. Graphene-based composite materialsNature, 4,475 citations.
  4. The M06 suite of density functionals for main group thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, noncovalent interactions, excited states, and transition elements: two new functionals and systematic testing of four M06-class functionals and 12 other functionalsTheoretical Chemistry Accounts, 4,133 citations.
  5. GROMACS 4:  Algorithms for Highly Efficient, Load-Balanced, and Scalable Molecular SimulationJournal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 3,899 citations.

So what’s big? Graphene, high-temperature superconductors, and modelling.

I was curious how long it took to publish these papers:

  1. 58 days
  2. 70 days
  3. 138 days
  4. Data N/A
  5. 125 days

How does this compare to most papers? Björk and Solomon did a study, The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. For chemistry, the average time from submitted to accepted is 4.73 months.

3 and 5 are fairly average, and 1 and 2 were pretty quick. Does this mean they were recognized quickly as higher impact papers? More than 4 data points are necessary to say for sure, there are too many factors in terms of editorial speed, reviewer speed, authors response time to edits, etc.


Schlenk in a bottle

schlenk

[Twitter]


Bad Santa!

bad santa

[Twitter: 12]


Periodic #tbt

Today’s not Thursday, this wasn’t posted on a Thursday, but maybe the textbook was published on a Thursday? The periodic table from 1933.

periodic table

[imgur]


Critique of Journal RSS Feeds

RSS feeds are how I skim journals and stay up to date. Some journals do RSS feeds better than others.

Here’s an example from Thin Solid Films, from Elsevier.
Title, Journal Title, Authors (just initials, ugh)
Terrible. Admittedly some Elsevier journals don’t have TOC images, like this one, and the ones that do, do show them in the RSS, but all journals should have them.

RSS Elsevier

Science, from AAAS:
Article Type, Title, First Author, One Sentence Summary, Authors
A one sentence summary is better than nothing, but why not the full abstract?

RSS Science

Journal of Materials Science, from Springer:
Title, Abstract
No authors, really?

RSS Springer

IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, from IEEE:
Title, Abstract
Same as Springer, c’mon!

RSS IEEE

Nature, from Nature Publishing Group:
Title, First Author, Title, Journal Title, DOI, Authors, Abstract
Some redundancy, no image, but at least the abstract, acceptable.

RSS Nature

Langmuir, an ACS journal:
Title, Authors, TOC image, Journal Title, DOI.
Not bad.

RSS ACS

Journal of Materials Chemistry A, from RSC:
Title, First Author, Journal Title, DOI, Authors, Abstract, TOC image, Citing Information, Copyright Information
Good, but definitely some extraneous information/text.

RSS RSC

Advanced Materials, from Wiley:
Title, Authors, Abstract, TOC image.
Excellent!

RSS Wiley

So you can tell that I’m a chemist/materials scientist, and don’t have any physics or bio journals, but I think I have a pretty broad range of publishers here. Who did it best? I listed them from worst to best, so definitely Wiley does RSS best. The only other thing I would like to see (that nobody does that I’ve seen) is the institution with the author names.

RSS editorial boardAnother rant; things which are unnecessary to show in your RSS feeds:

Table of contents: That’s what this whole feed is, you don’t need it all listed separately. Especially if you don’t actually list the contents in RSS clip itself (which nobody does).
Editorial board: I understand they do a lot of work, good for them, but just a link to your editorial board without even listing them in the RSS clip? Not helping anyone.
Cover images: Great, no problem with having these in the feed, but don’t link to a page which is just the cover image, link to the actual article it’s about.

Would be great if I could get publishers to read this and change their ways…


Level 5!

level 5

Lab does the Virgin Pulse program, where we wear pedometers and track activity, etc. You get points for activity, and the more you level up, the more money they give you in an HSA. I got to level 5 and maxed it for the year. Yeah!

level5


Yessssssssssss

forecast


More TOC commentary

If you can’t tell, I’m a little into journal TOC images. I enjoy ones which are either really well done, or really ridiculous. They grab your attention, which should really be the goal.

With the number of journals I skim via RSS (39 at the moment, it varies) I need the title or the TOC to jump out at me. Normally I’m just reading the titles, deciding if it is a) relevant to something I’m working on or have worked on, b) immediately gives me an idea for a proposal, or c) just sounds really interesting.

If your title doesn’t do any of those 3, you have a last chance with your TOC image. (Tangential point, some journals need to get their RSS feeds together, more on that in another post.) Put some time into your image, whether it be for making it look really good, or really ridiculous. With the time it took you to do the research and write the paper, is an hour or two for a chance to increase readership too hard?

Example of lazy TOC which prompted this post:

MF6

A photo of a molecular model? Sigh.