Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
scholar.googleblog.com
Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
1–10 of 55 posts
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#2This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such.
This almost sounds like collecting my most liked pics from 2006 on Facebook and creating an album "Best moments of my life".
Do they not have data before 2006 ?
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#3This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such. This almost sounds like collecting…
They will release more.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#4This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such. This almost sounds like collecting…
I remember how I was googling deeply for the most cited papers / science articles of all time and didn't find anything.
I naively thought that it is a simple thing and someone have that "collection of best articles".
Things are going to more like "this is hard problem"
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#5Noticeably missing: Gray and Lamport's "Consensus on Transaction Commit"
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#6This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such. This almost sounds like collecting…
This should be as simple as running a query in e.g. scholar: select area/field, sort by most cited, while ignoring citations that occur within x years of publication. Also, one could expand the citation relation transitively (like pagerank but without cycles).
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#7This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such. This almost sounds like collecting…
I remember how I was googling deeply for the most cited papers / science articles of all time and didn't find anything. I naively thought that it is a simple thing and someone have that "collection of best articles". Things are going to more like "this is hard problem"
There was http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 in 2014
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#8Noticeably missing: Gray and Lamport's "Consensus on Transaction Commit"
That paper appears to have been published in 2004, not 2006.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#9This has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ? Having just one year of publications and labeling them "Classic Papers" is pretty misleading as the term is used to indicate a wide gamut of publications over a much longer period of time. It should be just called "Top papers or research from 2006". Unless this expands to at least cover a decade, it shouldn't be labeled as such. This almost sounds like collecting…
I was expecting "classic" to mean papers like Part-time Parliament, Mathematical Theory of Communication, Unix Time-Sharing System, etc. Certainly was in for a surprise...
They certainly do have data prior to 2006, based on Google Scholar results. It seems like an odd choice, but it's explicitly stated that these articles were chosen because they're roughly 10 years old.
I do find some of their choices a bit odd, though. Surely they can come up with better examples? The BigTable paper (OSDI '06) out of Google itself has far more citations (~4x per google scholar citation counts) of the highest-ranked DB paper, and I'd say it's much higher impact than any of them, being one of the early papers of the NoSQL movement. I'd understand if the algorithm in play were more nuanced, but the introductory page explicitly states that these are the most-cited papers of 2006, which doesn't seem to be the case.
Obligatory disclaimer: despite my current employment status, these views don't represent Google's.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#10A lot has happened in my profession since 2006...