It's shocking to me how much easier it is to read CS/science papers from the 50s-70s, vs. papers today. Turing 1950 is one of the most important papers *in human history* and it reads like a blog post.
-
Someone (don't remember who, maybe
@michael_nielsen?) told me that groundbreaking papers don't get that many citations, compared to their derivatives. The original papers are usually so simple -- yet generative -- that they're taken for granted
-
-
Papers that cite 2+ papers that have never been citied together in same paper aren't citied as much initially, but after 5+ years end up with more total citations.
-
That's not true either, although there is work showing a (small but significant) trend along those lines. I have mentioned a couple of variants of that work to
@nayafia. - 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Coase is groundbreaking and gets cited plenty. Tiebout is groundbreaking and nobody payed attention til another scholar wrote a later paper.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.