Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I guess altogether it paints somewhat convincing picture and I already agreed with the title before reading but individually each of the graphs(I didn't read any of it) can be nitpicked.

The first paper output is the worst one, the number of papers are going up I don't really care about the number of authors on each paper that could be excused as cultural change

Nobel prizes, subjective, heavily influenced by culture

Cited papers, of course old papers are going to be cited more because more time has passed, they in textbooks and shit, I sure this was addressed in the words but again, didn't read

Growth in topics just seems like weird metric to me, I do see how it grew in 40's and 60's which sort of makes me think it might be okay metric but still weird

The last few graphs are comparing citations again

Yeah science probably harder

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.