String Forecast Poll

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date

How many recent string papers will get 100+ citations in 2005?


  • Total voters
    15
  • #26
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,757
788
Now there are 11 people in the poll and our predictions are

How many recent string papers will get 100+ citations in 2005?

One better than last year, 9: Meteor
Same as last year, 8: Locrian and I
One less than last year, 7: Igor_S
Slump continues, 6: selfAdjoint, Berislav
Yikes! 5: Peter Woit, Ohwilleke, Chronos
5-ish: Gokul
More yikes! 4: Spin_Network

Berislav agrees with selfAdjoint, in predicting 6 papers. At first he estimated 7 but on clarification about the problem revised his guess to 6.
 
  • #27
239
0
Are these preprints or published papers? I am curious how you got the numbers.
I counted the number of preprints that were submitted this year which cite the paper in question on it's SLAC page, e.g. http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+EPRINT+HEP-TH/0301240 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,757
788
notevenwrong said:
Hi Marcus,

Fun for the whole family!

I'm guessing 5-6 papers from 2001-2005 with >100 citations, and I'll even tell you which ones they'll be, roughly in order. I voted already and put 5 in my vote, but had forgotten about one. But leave my vote at 5, I think the last two on this list will be close to 100 citations and one of them may not make it.

KKLT hep-th/0301240
Berenstein et. al. on PP-waves hep-th/0202021
Giddings et. al on Flux compactifications hep-th/0105097
Kachru et. al. on inflation and string theory hep-th/0308055
Douglas, Nekrasov on Non-commutative field theory hep-th/0106048
Witten on strings on twistor space hep-th/0312171

Peter

The list that Berislav was checking out, in the preceding post, was one that notevenwrong supplied earlier in this thread. I first found out about Peter Woit's blog, Notevenwrong, in this thread started by selfAdjoint:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=16961

I had forgotten exactly when and which thread, but just now by accident came across the link to it. thanks to both. Its been extremely interesting to read Peter's blog (and sometimes some of the comments) over the past year.

Will be interesting to see how Peter's picks do citewise...
 
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,852
10
Marcus said:
I first found out about Peter Woit's blog, Notevenwrong, in this thread started by selfAdjoint

BTW, do check out Woit's blogroll. I know you've seen "Cosmic Variance", but others like "Life on the Lattice" and "@matrix" are exciting too. And "It's the Same but It's Different", although much of it is in Brazilian Portugese, has every week a must-see cull of interesting papers from the arxiv.

This last week has been meetings for everybody - strings, lattices, gravity at SLAC (wanna T-shirt?), and et blowin' cetera. Many reports and sociological snippets.
 
  • #30
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,757
788
selfAdjoint said:
BTW, do check out Woit's blogroll...

You're right! Peter's blogroll, especially in the old days before he put in the new format, was a real springboard for me. I found out about Steve Hsu's
"Information Processing" blog that way. Just to mention one.
But Peter pared the list down when he changed software. Everything is less cluttered now: easier to read and looks better. Still, it means that to get links to blogs I often have to go somewhere else, like Cosmic Variance
(whatever the site's other merits, the atmosphere there has a noticeably higher level of media-narcissism)

Something else was on my mind:
...

In 2000 there were 21 recent string papers that got 100+ citations.
The list is here
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/top40.2000.shtml
By recent, I mean published any time in the previous 5 years (1996 through 2000).

In 2004 there were 8 recent string papers that got 100+ citations,
the list is here
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2004/annual.shtml
and recent means the previous 5 years (2000 through 2004).

...

I've been puzzled by the fact that the usual stuff for 2004 has been slow to come out at
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/

I just know of these two pieces:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2004/annual.shtml

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2004/alltime.shtml

does anyone know of other parts of the 2004 topcites report that have been posted?

For instance, I have not seen Michael Peskin's review for last year

AFAIK the only thing to do is periodically check at this directory:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/library/topcites/2004/
 
Last edited:
  • #31
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,757
788
Robert Ihnot (welcome!) added his prediction. Time to update. Now there are 12 people in the poll and our predictions are

How many recent string papers will get 100+ citations in 2005?

One better than last year, 9: Meteor
Same as last year, 8: Locrian and I
One less than last year, 7: Igor_S
Slump continues, 6: selfAdjoint, Berislav, Robert Ihnot
Yikes! 5 or less: Peter Woit, Ohwilleke, Chronos, Gokul, Spin_Network


Berislav at first estimated 7 but on clarification of the problem revised his guess to 6. The way the distribution shapes up is

9: 1
8: 2
7: 1
6: 3
5 or less: 5
 

Related Threads on String Forecast Poll

  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top