Its not me but rather its you who has the wrong idea that all papers with 50 citations are good. Or rather the more citation == better research. Frankly almost

Its not me but rather its you who has the wrong idea that all papers with 50 citations are good. Or rather the more citation == better research. Frankly almost 95% of papers are crap and better off not having been written, had it not been for publish or perish culture, or "lets count papers/cites to shame a Nobel award winning researcher culture" that you espouse. Citations are a self reinforcing metric. Once a community starts counting them, the only way to succeed is to publish more which in turns leads to higher counts. There is nothing wrong in publishing a good thorough paper over 4 years maybe slowly updating it as a working paper as done in economics.