21–30 of 55 posts
Ironically, 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.
Worse still, with ~3000 citations, Dwork’s “Differential Privacy” (ICALP (2) 2006: 1-12), should rank even higher in the Theoretical Computer Science list. But Google Scholar has completely lost track of that foundational paper; it’s got it all confused with a completely different paper, Dwork’s 2008 “Differential Privacy: A Survey of Results”. Note that this also means that anybody searching for the general topic “differential privacy” on Google Scholar will not get to see the most-cited paper about it! https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/wp-content/uploads/...
Disclaimer: Dwork and I have been seen together, for 24 years.
No "programming language design and implementation" category?
This 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Things that had a major impact on the problems they focused on which many other papers doing something similar built on or constantly referenced. I'm skeptical of citations in general since those who chase them usually do a high number of quotable papers in whatever fad is popular instead of hard, deep, and critical work. Those I listed are the latter with who knows what citations. The collection is probably still nice for finding neat ideas or just learning in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like those would be under "Software systems."
Seems like at best 1 out of 10 in that category qualifies.. but yes, this is just 2006, so hard to tell.
Note: They all came way before 2006, too. Should've been easy for authors to find. :)
Out 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…