PeerJ R3C7

[kyleniemeyer]

although it is early days, is there any preliminary information on citation patterns for the articles? there is a hint only in "we may need to invest more effort into raising awareness of good practices for citing JOSS articles"

[arfon]

We have a few of sources for data on this:

• Crossref's own 'cited by' data that relies upon publishers depositing metadata: https://data.crossref.org/depositorreport?pubid=J299881
• Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=10.21105&hl=en&as_sdt=0,21
• ADS for citations in the astronomical literature: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#search/q=bibstem%3AJOSS&sort=date%20desc%2C%20bibcode%20desc

Looking at https://data.crossref.org/depositorreport?pubid=J299881, it seems like a small number of papers (~3) are picking up a decent number of citations the others, the odd one or two. It seems like we could be doing better.

One of the most cited papers is very clear in their README about how to cite. This presumably helps...?

[kyleniemeyer]

I propose adding a few sentences on preliminary citation statistics:

That said, we have some preliminary citation statistics: according to Google Scholar, corner.py [38] and Armadillo [39] have been cited the most at 116 and 79 times, respectively. Crossref's Cited-by service—which relies on publishers depositing reference information—reports 45 and 28 citations for the same articles [40]. Most other articles have received no citations yet, though some have been cited five times or fewer.

[kyleniemeyer]

I also added a response explaining this.

[arfon]

👍 I think this is sufficient.

[danielskatz]

maybe change the last sentence to:

While most other articles have received no citations to-date, a few have been cited between one and five times.