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.
Oikos Blog 
[…] An old humorous post, which actually has a semi-serious point to do with the use of citation metrics to evaluate scientific papers and authors. If you believe in bandwagons, then you should believe that sometimes being well-cited is a bad thing (because it just indicates that the author is riding a bandwagon). Share this:FacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]
By: From the archives: why my papers are like fine wine « Oikos Blog on March 2, 2012
at 4:40 am
I have definitely read some papers that are fruit forward.
By: Robin Snyder on March 2, 2012
at 2:47 pm
I’ve read some that are reminiscent of “horse blankets” (which apparently is an legit wine-describing adjective)
By: Jeremy Fox on March 2, 2012
at 2:55 pm
[…] my old humorous post on why my papers are like fine wine got me thinking about wine tastings. Wine tastings are often done blind so that the tasters […]
By: “Blind tastings” for scientific papers? « Oikos Blog on March 2, 2012
at 4:59 pm