It is a long way to the top if you wanna citations?

The path to success is rough and winding. It is filled with numerous ups and downs, and at times, the end may seem obscured. Still, this should not deter you, as the essence of science lies in the journey itself. The destination is unpredictable, influenced by discoveries, opportunities, and the evolution of new techniques and methodologies. Embrace the journey, ensuring to share your insights, not only with your peers and colleagues, but also with the wider audience, highlighting your contributions and their significance.

But first things first, what constitutes success in headache science? It could vary depending on the context; it might be the smile of a patient who has seen an improvement in their condition; a family’s gratitude upon regaining a loved one whose life was affected by a primary headache disorder, or a patient accurately diagnosed with a secondary headache disorder who receives specific treatment leading to complete resolution of the cause. These moments of satisfaction serve as the “fuel” that sustains us in our daily routine. However, we are talking about science from a more research-oriented perspective.

If we think about successful headache researchers, several prominent scholars come to mind. Many of they are brilliant speakers, deliver plenary lectures, serve on executive boards, and are even featured in mainstream publications and in the press. However, some excellent scientists remain in the shadows, less visible but equally, if not more, instrumental in advancing our understanding of headache disorders. Like many other facets of life, success is multidimensional, and one can achieve success in various ways.

The traditional methods of quantifying the impact of research primarily revolve around citation counts. This approach is relatively objective and facilitates the calculation of various indices, such as a journal’s impact factor or the H index. Nevertheless, it also has its caveats. The shift from printed journals to predominantly electronic online journals has accelerated and increased the visibility of research articles. Additionally, other strategies, such as visual abstracts, author interviews and dissemination through social media platforms are gaining popularity. The open-access nature of many journals has made science more accessible (1), and both academic and international institutions may grant access to traditional subscription-based journals for many researchers. However, a drawback of this trend is that some authors may face barriers in publishing their research in certain journals unless they have specific funds or institutional support, which is not always readily available.

Incorporating our scientific production to the “Olympus” of headache science is not an easy task (2). It demands innovative ideas, significant contributions to existing knowledge, clear and engaging content, visually appealing and self-explanatory figures or tables, and a clearly reported content (3). Recently, Danelakis et al, analyzed possible predictors of citation count in the three major headache journals: Cephalalgia, Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, and the Journal of Headache and Pain (4). Their study examined how 28 different bibliometric features could forecast the citation count within five years of publication. Some findings were unsurprising: articles authored by individuals with a history of high citation rates per article and total citation count, were more likely to be cited- a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy (5). Furthermore, articles with a greater number of authors from diverse affiliations were also more likely to receive citations. This underscores the value of collaboration; do not hesitate to collaborate with your international colleagues and friends. Unexpectedly, factors such as article length and number of references also played a role. These may indirectly signify more meticulous and comprehensive work, reflecting a thorough review of existing evidence and the current state-of-the-art of the field on the topic at hand.

One aspect that intriguingly mirrors our society is the ever-evolving landscape of research topics. Trends come and go, much like in fashion. In Danielaki’s study (4), a word cloud revealed the most popular trends in 2018, such as “triptans”. It surprises that some terms that are currently under the spotlight, such as calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or coronavirus disease (COVID-19), were absent. In contrast, there was a harmonious blend of various aspects of the migraine puzzle, spanning from epidemiology to preventive treatment. Migraine research must emulate the intricate behaviour of the migraine brain. Thus, it necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration and global collaboration, to deepen our understanding of the disease’s pathophysiology, its phenotypic expression, and how best to assist our patients.

Some additional citation boosters not covered in the study (4) involve presenting the work at conferences and meetings. Attendees’ feedback serves as an initial and cost-free form of peer review, aiding in the refinement of the manuscript and potentially enhancing its visibility. It is essential to remember that we are discussing how to increase citations, and unknown work typically goes uncited. Furthermore, studying others’ limitations can strengthen your research methods and increase your chances of success where others may have faltered.

Editors, in their role akin to Roman emperors, wield the ultimate authority in deciding whether an article should be accepted or rejected, with the added option of a review round that many gladiators would have yearned for. Reviewers must not forget that their most valuable contribution lies in improving the manuscript, irrespective of its eventual acceptance status. We all value constructive feedback and appreciate a polite explanation of how the manuscript can be made clearer. Authors, as the creators and communicators of science, should allocate sufficient time to crafting manuscripts that offer a robust and comprehensive presentation of their scientific methods and findings, along with a clear and compelling contextualization of the data. Manuscripts should be treated as the works of art they are. Do not hesitate to review the final draft once more, sculpting sentences, listening to the text’s music, or painting its imagery with one more touch.

As some wise people said a long time ago: If you wanna be a star of stage and screen, look out, it is rough and mean; it is a long way to the top, if you want to get citations (6).