When you're having a crazy busy morning, and experiments are going kinda crappy (I'm at the "let's remake the solutions" stage), it can be nice to get a Friday morning email alert to 3 fresh citations to your papers! Sure, it's a little thing, but at this stage I'll take what I can get.
People are out there reading, so there must be people out there who care. Keep 'em coming folks, keep 'em coming!
By the way, what's with variability between the citation search engines? I know this has been covered before somewhere, but really.
Searching on my first paper from grad school, we get:
90 cites in ISI from the J Neurosci site.
93 from ISI itself
98 from Scopus (I got a free preview for reviewing a paper. It's pretty cool, but I haven't used it enough to say much substantive. I do like the display of citations by year, Journal, author).
102 from Google Scholar
Now, so of these I'd cut slack for (e.g., J Neurosci probably only pulls cite numbers from ISI infrequently, and who know how reliable Google Scholar is, but what's the difference between ISI and Scopus? Anyone look deeper into this?
If citations, h-indices and impact factors have traction as important metrics, shouldn't they be, oh I dunno, accurate?