You should appreciate the infrequency of my blog posts

2 thoughts on “You should appreciate the infrequency of my blog posts”

  1. That is a nice fish.

    I’d be interested in the number of consequential papers over time… say, plot the number of papers with 20 citations or more. At least some of the paper proliferation is due to journal proliferation, and papers about one factoid being accepted by journals that will publish anything.

    On the other hand, it also seems like papers at normal journals need to go into more and more depth to be accepted. When I was in grad school a fly paper was a good description of a phenotype and a mapping to where in the genome the mutation might be. Now you need a pathway, a molecular function, expression data, etc.

    1. Yes, I certainly agree — there’s a strange paradox that lots of terrible stuff is being published, while it’s hard to get “good,” small things published.
      About consequential papers — yes, this would be neat to see. The closest thing I can think of to a study of this is a paper on Physics citations over time, . It has graphs of things like citation probability vs. years after publication (Fig 7) for papers published in various years, which are all very similar to each other even in the high-probability end of the curve.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s