Paper detail

Astronomy's Greatest Hits: The 100 most Cited Papers in Each Year of the First Decade of the 21st Century (2000 - 2009)

This paper is based on the 100 most cited papers in astronomy for each year from 2000 to 2009 and from 1995 and 1990. The main findings are: The total number of authors of the top 100 articles per year has more than tripled. This is seen most strongly in papers with more than 6 authors. The yearly number of papers with 5 or fewer authors has declined over the same time period. The most highly cited papers tend to have the largest number of authors and visa versa. The distribution of normalized citation counts versus ranking is constant from year to year except for the top ranked half dozen or so papers. It is closely approximated by a power law. The papers that show the most divergence from the power law all have a high number of citations and are based on large surveys. The average page length of the top 100 papers is one and a half times that for astronomy papers in general. The same 5 journals (A&A, AJ, ApJ, ApJS, and MNRAS) account for 80 to 85% of the total citations for each year of all the journals in the category "Astronomy and Astrophysics" by ISI's Journal Citation Reports. These same 5 journals account for 77% of the 1000 most cited papers. A significant number of articles originally ranked in the top 100 for a year, drop out after 2 to 3 years and are replaced by other articles. Most of the drop-outs deal with extra-galactic astronomy; their replacements deal with non-extra-galactic topics. Indicators of internet access to astronomical web sites such as data archives and journal repositories show increases of between factors of three and ten or more I propose that there are close complementarities between the communication capabilities that internet usage enables and the strong growth in numbers of authors of the most highly cited papers.

preprint2010arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.