Richard Van Noorden

@richvn
1.9K Followers
789 Following
439 Posts
Features editor, Nature.
r.vannoorden[[at]]nature[[dot]]com
richardvannoorden⟦at⟧protonmail⟦dot⟧com
Toots are searchable via tootfinder.
Verified byhttps://fedified.com
VERIFIED JOURNALISThttps://www.verifiedjournalist.org/people/@[email protected]
Richard Van NoordenApr 16, 2025

What's the most cited research published in the 21st century?

Which are the most cited papers of all time?

And what decades-old science studies are still heavily referenced today?

Answers to all these and more in a series of features in Nature on the research that makes the top of the citation charts.

(Long-time readers will remember a 'top 100 papers' that Nature ran in 2014 -- as part of this package this is updated to the present day)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01125-9

Exclusive: the most-cited papers of the twenty-first century

A Nature analysis reveals the 25 highest-cited papers published this century and explores why they are breaking records.

Richard Van NoordenMar 25, 2025
David WhittleMar 20, 2025
The biggest machine in science: inside the fight to build the next giant particle collider
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00793-x
The biggest machine in science: inside the fight to build the next giant particle collider

The European physics laboratory CERN is planning to build a mega collider by 2070. Critics say the plan could lead to its ruin.

Richard Van NoordenNov 15, 2024
Show threadJeff JarvisNov 15, 2024
Any critics are at risk, chapter 2.
Scientific American editor steps down after election comments draw backlash https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/11/14/scientific-american-laura-helmuth-quits/
Scientific American editor steps down after election comments draw backlash

Criticism of Laura Helmuth’s comments increased after X owner and Trump ally Elon Musk weighed in.

The Washington Post
Show threadRichard Van NoordenNov 15, 2024
@hildabast @LudoWaltman Hi Hilda, here's another giant survey that involved cold-emailing: by researchers, so a research study this time - response rate 7%. I do think this is absolutely standard for the methodology of cold-emailing addresses pulled from papers!
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3002870
Biomedical researchers’ perspectives on the reproducibility of research

There is growing interest in the reproducibility of research and ways to enhance transparency. This study uses an international survey of more than 1900 biomedical researchers to reveal the perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience of conducting replication studies, and knowledge of relevant funding and training.

Show threadRichard Van NoordenNov 13, 2024

@mike :) we definitely need more comparative evaluations of AI-assisted vs human-written content in this area.

imo it’s a case of the experts using these tools to help (and aware of shortcomings) while the non-experts create a flood of inaccurate reviews.

Richard Van NoordenNov 13, 2024

"AI tools could help scientists to produce high-quality reviews, but might also fuel the rapid generation of substandard ones".

Great overview by Helen Pearson in Nature of current efforts to have AI create review articles from the scientific literature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03676-9

Can AI review the scientific literature — and figure out what it all means?

Artificial intelligence could help speedily summarize research. But it comes with risks.

Show threadRichard Van NoordenOct 23, 2024
@egonw @rmounce Yes sorry @OpenAlex in retrospect I should have mentioned you as another of the open data sources involved. (To be clear though, the idea of scoring for risk depends not on OpenAlex but on Retraction Watch and Cabanac's Feet of Clay).
Show threadRichard Van NoordenOct 23, 2024
@egonw @rmounce Idea is that such tools announce their findings to editors (not that it's an automated decision based on what the tool shows).
Richard Van NoordenOct 23, 2024
Show threadEgon Willigh☮gen 🟥Oct 23, 2024
@rmounce @richvn indeed! they are just average numbers, exactly like the journal impact factor
Show threadRichard Van NoordenOct 22, 2024
@drs1969 Agree!
On the to-do list for a future article. It is weird no-one’s done that yet. But obviously it’s easier to tot up the data on country, journal, or publisher, so that’s why they get done first.