[aub3bhat]

Its not me but rather its you who has the wrong idea that all papers with 50 citations are good. Or rather the more citation == better research.

Frankly almost 95% of papers are crap and better off not having been written, had it not been for publish or perish culture, or "lets count papers/cites to shame a Nobel award winning researcher culture" that you espouse.

Citations are a self reinforcing metric. Once a community starts counting them, the only way to succeed is to publish more which in turns leads to higher counts.

There is nothing wrong in publishing a good thorough paper over 4 years maybe slowly updating it as a working paper as done in economics.

[Ar-Curunir]

I am not saying that all papers with citations are good; rather, that most good papers get tons of citations.

[gnipgnip]

I wish papers were "running", as in a wiki page with developments being incrementally added. It'd certainly help reduce the amount of redundant reading, and much greater coherency.