5 ms·

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 i

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 my most liked pics from 2006 on Facebook and creating an album "Best moments of my life". Do they not have data before 2006 ?

ThomPete 9y ago
They will release more.
tandav 9y ago
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"
- enimodas 9y ago
  There was http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 in 2014
  - blt 9y ago
    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.
    - tgb 9y ago
      Some fields cite more and publish more than other fields. It doesn't really make any sense to compare citation counts between fields. Moreover, Google's ranking removes review articles and many other things - it purely looks for 'new research' articles. Those get cited much less frequently than reviews or methods papers.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
amelius 9y ago
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).
vitus 9y ago
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.
a3n 9y ago
> 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."
- RhysU 9y ago
  Measuring citations by year Y+10 for publication year Y could be run for all historical years pretty easily.

ThomPete 9y ago

They will release more.

tandav 9y ago

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"

enimodas 9y ago
There was http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 http://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 in 2014
- blt 9y ago
  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.
  - tgb 9y ago
    Some fields cite more and publish more than other fields. It doesn't really make any sense to compare citation counts between fields. Moreover, Google's ranking removes review articles and many other things - it purely looks for 'new research' articles. Those get cited much less frequently than reviews or methods papers.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

amelius 9y ago

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).

vitus 9y ago

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.

a3n 9y ago

> 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."

RhysU 9y ago
Measuring citations by year Y+10 for publication year Y could be run for all historical years pretty easily.