Now that 2012 is well behind us, it is fun to take one last look back and ask– what was important to us as astronomers last year? One way (and there are many!) to investigate this is to look at the papers astronomers gave a shout-out to in their own work. So, which 2012 papers were cited the most ?
Without further ado, we present in pictures the top twelve most referenced papers published in refereed astronomical journals in 2012 (as found in an ADS search on February 17), and explain what made so many people care about them. (Note: we excluded astroparticle papers from this list, but there was clearly a lot of excitement in 2012 ranging from the detection of a Higgs-like boson to an apparent gamma ray signature that might be related to dark matter.)
Next: (#12) Now you see them, now you don’t: Less Lyman-alpha emission from the oldest galaxies
Author
Hi Betsy:
Just a note– it looks like the arXiv link that you have on the first page of this article does not link to the title you provide.
The link looks like it goes here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.0499
“How supernova feedback turns dark matter cusps into cores”
instead of here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.1261
“Keck Spectroscopy of Faint 3<z<8 Lyman Break Galaxies:- Evidence for a Declining Fraction of Emission Line Sources In the Redshift Range 6<z<8"
Thanks,
Dave
Ah, actually the links are just switched–
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks Dave! The links are now fixed.
Fascinating articles! But counting citations seriously distorts what astronomy is about. Because most young astronomers today work in observational cosmology, 10/12 papers are on that topic, the most glamorous frontier. But 10/12 of the most significant new papers of 2012 (selected some other way) paint a certainly much broader canvas, and reflect the amazing scope of astronomical research!
Only the search for new planets (another glamour topic) and new calculations of the evolution of rotating stars in the HR diagram (a classic issue in stellar astronomy) penetrated the top twelve. So much more was missing!
Nonetheless, an interesting citation poll.
Hi, I think the mass-to-light ratio of a low-mass star is higher than that of a high-mass star. In addition, the Salpeter IMF has more low-mass stars than the Kroupa and Chabrier IMFs.
I think that the article in astrobites has more detail introduction:
http://astrobites.com/2012/02/16/the-imf-is-not-universal/
Yes, I had the mass-to-light ratio section entirely backward; this is now corrected (and consistent with the linked astrobite). Thank you!!