3 ms·
It is important to keep in mind that ... the older a paper is, the more "chances" it gets to be cited. On average, papers published 20 yrs ago would've been cit
by rxin 16y ago
It is important to keep in mind that ... the older a paper is, the more "chances" it gets to be cited. On average, papers published 20 yrs ago would've been cited more than papers published 10 yrs ago. It is more fair if you compare publication citations in 10 years.
I.e. compare
citation between 1990 and 2000 for paper A published in 1990
vs
citation between 2000 and 2010 for paper published in 2000
- pmjordan 16y agoI think we're talking about independent observations. I found it remarkable that Google's papers received 60583-19354=41229 citations between (presumably) 1998 and 2000 but only 19354 between 2000 and 2010. That's a pretty staggering difference, especially as the number is an aggregate, as you say. Based on this observation I theorise that the PageRank papers were hugely influential, but the recent published work has paled in comparison. (i.e. those 19354 will also include later citations of the early papers, inflating the 41229 figure further)
- rxin 16y agoI definitely agree with you pagerank would be one of the most influential paper in Google history. However, for the year filter, I might be wrong but I think it filters based on the year the paper is published, not the year it gets cited. So when you pick "last 5 years", it won't include the citations for pagerank.