[gewaltig]

The idea is good, but the real difficulty is that recent publications do not yet represent established knowledge but are rather part of an ongoing scientific discussion. Now without being part of the respective community it is therefore very difficult to correctly judge the publications. If you look at semantic scholar, they're trying to classify publications as "influential" or "background", based on how often they're cited.

[dimitri-koenig]

Hm, i get your point. My take on this is the following:

Every established knowledge started of as cutting edge. Some took way longer to be accepted and respected. Sometimes decades. So I like that cutting edge science and ideas are put out there. Only time will tell what ideas are really good.

[richardreeze]

I think a way around this would be some sort of voting/ popularity system?

Papers with code (https://paperswithcode.com/) does this via Github stars sorting.

Sure it doesn't mean something is established. But at least it gives some way to filter through the firehose of papers.

Love this project btw! I think it has potential (and the timing is right now that everyone is looking for the next "attention is all you need")