18

I have come across a few times in research papers or in books, where the authors refer a past (mostly an old) research paper as classic paper. For example, in a book Bratko refers the following:

The procedural meaning of Prolog is based on the resolution principle for mechanical theorem proving introduced by Robinson in his classic paper (1965). [1]

In another example, the author mention such a statement in the abstract itself,

Notes that the stimulation from a classic paper in the heuristics and biases tradition does not come only from the insights provided into processes of judgment and decision making; ... [2]

What is a classic work? Can we say a work as 'classic work', if it cited more number of times? Or, it is a breakthrough work? Then, how do we define a breakthrough work?

[1] Bratko, Ivan. Prolog programming for artificial intelligence. Pearson education, 2001.

[2] Sloman, S. A. (2002). Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 379-396).

Wrzlprmft
  • 61,194
  • 18
  • 189
  • 288
Coder
  • 12,676
  • 7
  • 53
  • 99
  • 1
    Related: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/5369/how-far-back-should-one-go-in-citing-classic-works – Coder Sep 05 '17 at 19:06
  • 5
    For me, I think it probably has something to do with if it is regularly read in a graduate level class. – StrongBad Sep 05 '17 at 19:08
  • @StrongBad Okay, so can we claim that all the works that are published and cited more often are 'classic'? – Coder Sep 05 '17 at 19:09
  • Some professional groups, like the Ecological Society of America, have books of complied "classic" papers. (I suspect these books were more popular before online articles made finding the classics easy). Inclusion in a books like this one would be way to id classic papers (but doesn't help for paper that were not included). – Richard Erickson Sep 05 '17 at 19:14
  • 7
    Related: When to refer to a paper as “seminal” – Wrzlprmft Sep 05 '17 at 19:15
  • 1
    Whenever we feel like it can bolster the prestige of our own work ("we answer the following question posed in the classic paper by ..."). – darij grinberg Sep 05 '17 at 19:55
  • If people are still reading it 100 years after you wrote it, it's a "classic" - even though you may never have known that in your lifetime! – alephzero Sep 06 '17 at 21:53

3 Answers3

55

This isn't something that is decided based on objective measures - it's a statement of the author's opinion that history has shown the paper to be very important.

If you, in your professional opinion, believe that the paper has had a major influence on an area of research, for a considerable period of time, then you could call it "classic". If you don't believe that, or you're not sure, or you don't think you have enough experience to judge, then don't use the word.

Nate Eldredge
  • 133,015
  • 44
  • 379
  • 480
16

I don't think there really is any one definition of a 'classic' paper, but I think features that might contribute to the label include:

  • being an old paper that still gets used (or just referenced) a lot;
  • introducing a big new idea;
  • having been built on substantially (in a good way);
  • being well known as a good survey/suitable for learning the area from;
  • dating from and using methods from before a paradigm shift took place.

Note that some of these use the word 'classic' with slightly different meanings.

Jessica B
  • 15,968
  • 3
  • 46
  • 69
  • 4
    Your last bullet is "classical" rather than "classic". For example, in physics, "classical mechanics" refers to mechanics prior to the paradigm shift of quantum mechanics. There are many humdrum papers about classical mechanics and many classic papers about quantum mechanics. – David Richerby Sep 06 '17 at 09:28
2

It is really just a mild expression of reverence by the author. It has no set meaning beyond that.

Weckar E.
  • 1,272
  • 8
  • 16