Of course, relative citation frequencies are no measure of relative importance. Who has not aspired to write a paper so fundamental that very soon it is known to everyone and cited by no one?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In an ideal world, you might imagine that scientific papers were only cited by academics on the basis of their content. This might be true. But lots of other stuff can have an influence.
Ironically, the more intensive and far-reaching a historian's research, the greater the difficulty of citation. As the mountain of material grows, so does the possibility of error.
There is some truth to the idea that, in the fields of science, individual contributions of great significance are possible.
Some things tend not to work so well for science - things that rely on substantial written contributions by key experts are a case in point - but even there I tend to keep an open mind, because it may just be a case of finding the right formula.
Sometimes I make an analogy that each scientific paper is like putting out another record. And some people have careers that are nothing but a one-hit wonder. And then there are people who are only appreciated by aficionados but largely forgotten by the wider community.
It's very rare that publications double their frequency.
It is common, and encouraged by many journals, for research to be judged by the impact factor of the journal that publishes it. But as a journal's score is an average, it says little about the quality of any individual piece of research.
Most biographers are apt to be discouraged by the sheer volume of papers left behind by their subject.
Authors are influenced by everything they've ever read. If you've read widely enough, it helps you create your own mix.
One can measure the importance of a scientific work by the number of earlier publications rendered superfluous by it.