# Back to the past: on the shoulders of an academic search engine giant

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.09111 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.09111/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 30 Mar 2016.

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Forgotten Knowledge: Examining the Citational Amnesia in NLP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18554/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT v Bard v Bing v Claude 2 v Aria v human-expert. How good are AI chatbots at scientific writing?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.08636/) (2023)
- [Quantifying the Online Long-Term Interest in Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.06212/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

A study released by the Google Scholar team found an apparently increasing fraction of citations to old articles from studies published in the last 24 years (1990-2013). To demonstrate this finding we conducted a complementary study using a different data source (Journal Citation Reports), metric (aggregate cited half-life), time spam (2003-2013), and set of categories (53 Social Science subject categories and 167 Science subject categories). Although the results obtained confirm and reinforce the previous findings, the possible causes of this phenomenon keep unclear. We finally hypothesize that first page results syndrome in conjunction with the fact that Google Scholar favours the most cited documents are suggesting the growing trend of citing old documents is partly caused by Google Scholar.