Because they’re mostly not cited often, indicating that they can only be appreciated by a cultivated elite. If everybody and their mother was citing me, that would mean my papers were the scientific equivalent of Two Buck Chuck.
At least, that’s what I like to tell myself. And my Head of Department.
p.s. This thought opens a whole universe of new adjectives to describe my work.
p.p.s. I’m actually more of a beer drinker, so I prefer to think my papers are more like this than like this.
Pingback: From the archives: why my papers are like fine wine « Oikos Blog
I have definitely read some papers that are fruit forward.
I’ve read some that are reminiscent of “horse blankets” (which apparently is a legit wine-describing adjective)
Pingback: “Blind tastings” for scientific papers? « Oikos Blog
Pingback: Musings on the culture of ecology | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Friday links: the need for replication, how artists and scientists present their work, and more (much more!) | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Jeremy’s blogging FAQs | Dynamic Ecology