Should be labeled "Top cited papers of 2006" or something similar. Calling this collection "Classic Papers" is misleading at best.
Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
11–20 of 55 posts
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#12Nice list, but as many other said, seems to only be for 2006.
For more papers, there is a nice list here: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html not limited to 2006
There is a bunch more places to get papers listed here too: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love#other-good-...
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#13Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of scientific books (or papers) that are the exact opposite: influential or famous at the time but completely and utterly destroyed by the test of time. Like, that seem silly to us in how completely and utterly wrong they turned out to be in their every single conclusion.
I'm thinking about research versions of Lord Kevin's favorite edict: "Heavier than air flying machines impossible" or the patent person (examiner? head of patent office?) who in the nineteenth century said everything that can be invented has been invented.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#14Out of curiosity, does anyone have any examples of scientific books (or papers) that are the exact opposite: influential or famous at the time but completely and utterly destroyed by the test of time. Like, that seem silly to us in how completely and utterly wrong they turned out to be in their every single conclusion. I'm thinking about research versions of Lord Kevin's favorite edict: "Heavier than air flying machi…
Any paper about the luminiferous aether from before the Michelson Morley experiment?
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#15Ironically, you have to copy, paste and Google the titles of most of these to find downloadable versions.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#16Ironically, you have to copy, paste and Google the titles of most of these to find downloadable versions.
sci-hub.cc can help with those that don't show a PDF in the Google results.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#17This 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 has left me scratching my head - why just 2006 ?
As they said in the post, they're measuring cites 10 years after. It's 2017. I imagine 2006 is their "inaugural year."
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#18Should be labeled "Top cited papers of 2006" or something similar. Calling this collection "Classic Papers" is misleading at best.
No, it's an exactly accurate name for their feature. For which they have only yet released the 2006 edition.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Wow, I was not expecting so many to be biology and chemistry. Good reminder that computer science isn't the whole world. Nice to see EM, simulated annealing, and Levenberg Marquardt in the bottom 50.
Re: Classic Papers: Articles That Have Stood the Test of Time
#20As one might guess, there is a lot wrong with this list even within there stated goals. My examples are drawn from mathematics, since that's what I know. They appear to use the journal to classify category, which doesn't work very well since many of the best results are published in general journals. Additionally, since citation counts vary so widely between sub-fields, there is a strong pull towards selecting misclassified work from higher-citation fields. For example the paper "High-dimensional centrally symmetric polytopes with neighborliness proportional to dimension" is listed in geometry but belongs elsewhere, and there are no probability papers in the category "Probability and Statistics with Applications". Also, the "Pure & Applied" category is meaningless. That list seems to be the most cited papers from five arbitrary journals. I guess it's a reminder that these problems are hard to automate, and that your work doesn't have to be perfect to share.