I read the top 100 Scientific papers of all time

youtube.com

16 points·lifeisstillgood··10 comments

The fascinating part is papers like Realtivity just don't get the citations so they don't get into the top 100 - if you work out the 100 by citations.

Fascinated to see if there is a list of "the 25 scientific papers you must read before you die" - much like the list of films Empire will publish etc.

If I put 90 minutes into a paper as often as I do into a movie I might actually know something :-)

Another commenter linked a nature article with the top 100 papers by citation, and they start by pointing out that a bunch of Nobel-winning work didn’t make the list

I think the Nobel list would be a different sort than your 25 must read list, but maybe it’s a good place to start

Yeah the video itself pointed out that using citations was not perfect.

And yes, the nobel winning papers for the last century will be interesting too.

So. I tried reading the top 100 papers in PL. Topic was so huge I had to settle on top 100 papers on language front ends. Even this was so huge I ended up settling 100 papers on parsing theory (this is really fascinating and still not a solved topic!!).

I guess how do you read 100 top papers of all time and walk away with anything substantial/meaningful beyond bragging rights?

Exactly. I feel this akin to rushing through the "100 best books", only worse. Quality+quantity only works if you have a lot of time.

Nature artice: The Top 100 Papers https://www.nature.com/news/the-top-100-papers-1.16224

Not too surprised the top (cited) papers are mostly about processes

"During a gold rush, sell shovels"

If McClintock s papers on corn transposons is not on the list of papers you can be sure it's bunk

Needs a "(video)" in the title

Good to know.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com