https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0809.5250/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15935516urn:hackerpapers:mention:0809.5250:15935516Fri, 15 Dec 2017 21:50:26 GMT<p>In the methods section, they do say that &quot;first author self-citations were excluded.&quot; One of the figures in the Nature article also pulls out self-citations. https://arxiv.org/abs/0809.5250</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0809.5250/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>physics.soc-phhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12844346urn:hackerpapers:mention:0809.5250:12844346Tue, 01 Nov 2016 09:30:50 GMT<p>Here are the original papers cited: Meho 2007: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2058-7058/20/1/33/... (not open access) Evans 2008: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183... Lariviere &amp; Gingras 2008(?): https://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.5250v1.pdf The third paper is especially interesting, as it brings forward what seems to be a pretty solid analysis that goes against what the previous two authors (and the Smithsonianmag) say about the state of science. So maybe there is hope yet :-)</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/0809.5250/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>physics.soc-ph