3 ms·

I couldn't find any "influential" papers by him. Here's a fascinating read about Neil's scientific output. The graph at the bottom is quite informative. https:

• defrost 3y ago
  The fame x paper sequence chart was telling: https://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/images/20100719_astronomer_HR_diagram.png https://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/images/20100719_astron... and, as noted, Dr Brian May is completely off the chart (fame - wise) with relatively few astro papers (just his doctorate?).
• bglazer 3y ago
  Neil de Grasse Tyson’s academic output is exactly what you would expect from someone did a phd then left research science. He has a few first author papers that have a couple dozen citations and a few papers where he’s only a contributor. He hasn’t written academically since then. He’s not doing active research, which may mean he’s fallen behind on the cutting edge, but that doesn’t mean he’s not qualified to talk about astronomy with the public. He has the relevant training and knowledge. Emil Kirkegaard, whose blog you linked to, is not a reliable or unbiased source for this kind of judgement for a wide variety of reasons.
• joshuaissac 3y ago
  The gist of this article seems to be that Tyson is "not much of an astrophysicist" because he has too many social media followers compared to the number of papers he has published. That kind of analysis seems nonsensical to me.