3 ms·
I read the top 100 Scientific papers of all time
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoThe fascinating part is papers like Realtivity just don't get the citations so they don't get into the top 100 - if you work out the 100 by citations. Fascinated to see if there is a list of "the 25 scientific papers you must read before you die" - much like the list of films Empire will publish etc. If I put 90 minutes into a paper as often as I do into a movie I might actually know something :-)
- rsfern 5y agoAnother commenter linked a nature article with the top 100 papers by citation, and they start by pointing out that a bunch of Nobel-winning work didn’t make the list I think the Nobel list would be a different sort than your 25 must read list, but maybe it’s a good place to start
- lifeisstillgood 5y agoYeah the video itself pointed out that using citations was not perfect. And yes, the nobel winning papers for the last century will be interesting too.
- wrycoder 5y agoNature artice: The Top 100 Papers https://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224 https://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224
- flashgordon 5y agoSo. I tried reading the top 100 papers in PL. Topic was so huge I had to settle on top 100 papers on language front ends. Even this was so huge I ended up settling 100 papers on parsing theory (this is really fascinating and still not a solved topic!!). I guess how do you read 100 top papers of all time and walk away with anything substantial/meaningful beyond bragging rights?
- fastasucan 5y agoExactly. I feel this akin to rushing through the "100 best books", only worse. Quality+quantity only works if you have a lot of time.
- aaron695 5y ago
- Rochus 5y agoGood to know.
- trinovantes 5y agoNot too surprised the top (cited) papers are mostly about processes "During a gold rush, sell shovels"
- trash3 5y agoIf McClintock s papers on corn transposons is not on the list of papers you can be sure it's bunk
- zvr 5y agoNeeds a "(video)" in the title