Is the New Format of Spires Topcites 2006 Overlooking Significant Research?

[marcus]

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/

new format.

Peter Woit comments:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=513

the new format doesn't go as deep, to get on the Spires 2006 list, a paper needed 150+ cites.
so only one recent string paper made it---the 2003 KKLT paper----the other 49 papers were not string or were pre-2002

Peter's list for comparison
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/2006topcites.html

Spires reports from earlier years
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/older/topcites/

 

[marcus]

The new format does not list all the papers that got 100+ citations. Instead it lists the top 50 citation-getters.

So it is a shorter list. In order to compare with previous years, we need to only look at the top 50 on that year's list and count how many recent string papers made the top 50.

I'll take recent to mean published in the past five years. So in 2006 recent means a 2002-2006 publication date. And in 2001 it means 1997-2001 publication.

2001: Fourteen recent (1997-2001) string papers made the top 50.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/top40.2001.shtml
(in case anyone is curious they are numbers 2,3,4,5,6,7,10,13,17,35,36,38,46 on the list)

2002: Thirteen recent (1998-2002) string papers in the top 50.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/top40.2002.shtml
(numbers 2,3,5,6,10,12,13,15,17,21,30,32,33, with question about 47)

2003: Eight recent string papers in the top 50.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2003/annual.shtml
(numbers 5,9,16,18,28,32,37,39)

2004: THREE recent string papers made the top 50.
(numbers 29, 32, 36---29 was the KKLT)

2005: Three recent string papers made the top 50.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2005/annual.shtml
(numbers 18,34,49---18 was KKLT)

2006: ONE recent (i.e. publ. 2002-2006) string paper made the top 50.
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/topcites/2006/annual.shtml
(number 19---the KKLT paper which brought us the "landscape" of deSitter vacuua)

Astrophysics papers have been included in the topcites list at least since 2001, if not earlier, so over the period 2001-2006 we seem to be comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. There has been a parallel decline in the number of recent string papers garnering 100+ citations which would not be affected by which other types of papers were included.

 

[Entropia]

I find the new format of Spires topcites 2006 to be concerning. The fact that only one recent string paper made it onto the list suggests that the new format is not as comprehensive as the previous format. This could potentially lead to important papers and research being overlooked or undervalued. Additionally, the focus on the number of citations rather than the quality of the research may not accurately reflect the impact and significance of a particular paper. It is important for platforms like Spires to continue to provide thorough and unbiased rankings of scientific research in order to promote the advancement of knowledge and understanding in the scientific community. I appreciate Peter Woit's efforts to provide a comparison with his own list, which may offer a more comprehensive and accurate representation of the top cited papers in 2006. It would be beneficial for Spires to also consider incorporating qualitative measures in their rankings to provide a more well-rounded evaluation of scientific research.