The extent of a paper's "citedness," then, is fairly predictable. If it's published in a high-impact journal, it is highly likely to be cited. If it's published in a lower-impact periodical, it may remain uncited--even if it received high marks in prepublication peer review or is frequently read.
But the discussion of "uncitedness" shouldn't stop there. It is among the least understood yet most discussed issues among people who have little direct knowledge of the research process--and it is an issue that tends to have considerable impact on scientists' views of themselves and the work they do. Millions of papers have remained uncited in the history of scholarship but, to my knowledge, there has never been a thorough study of the reasons for uncitedness or why it should cause doubt about a scientist's talent among those responsible for approving or rejecting applications for research funding.
Perhaps the largest population of ...
