Why do you think your paper is highly cited?

Philip J. Currie excavating the skull of an ornithomimid. Photo by Clive Coy.

There are several reasons that the paper is highly cited in my opinion. First and foremost is the fact that it is a key animal linked to understanding the relationship of dinosaurs and birds. Depending on how one classifies birds, Caudipteryx can be considered as either a non-avian dinosaur or a bird. The presence of true feathers is unquestionable, but osteologically it is more primitive than the earliest bird (Archaeopteryx). Characters seen in its skeleton include some (such as the highly specialized ankle bones) that have been claimed as absent in birds. Therefore, if the argument is made that Caudipteryx is a bird rather than a dinosaur, it still proves the relationship by virtue of characters like these. A second factor in the success of the paper is that Caudipteryx was one of the earliest known feathered dinosaurs, and attracted more attention than subsequent finds. The publication in Nature was also coordinated with the release of a popular article in National Geographic, and therefore reached a much larger audience than most papers do.

Philip J. Currie
Curator of Dinosaurs
Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology
Drumheller, Alberta, Canada