> A meta analysis is cheap and easy to do for even an undergrad, and doesn’t require any special insight or foresight. This is too harsh, too narrow, and too j

> A meta analysis is cheap and easy to do for even an undergrad, and doesn’t require any special insight or foresight. This is too harsh, too narrow, and too judgmental. This only mentions the skill required, but neglects to account for the benefits to the body of knowledge (literature). I reject the idea that scientific papers impact should be judged on a curve according to how difficult the work was: 1. This is premised on a false notion of scarcity. 2. Breakthroughs can seem obvious to a lucky person in the right place and time. 3. Others may ascribe "genius-level" status to such lucky people, but this elevation is often unwarranted and not useful. 4. The time delay before impact and benefit is uncertain. Often work takes time to be synthesized, appreciated, applied, and so on. 5. What is {important, relevant, useful} can change over time. Having only a narrow definition misses the point.