basic result of [[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]] seems to be replicated by a later shorter paper focusing only on physicists: @mairesseNoveltyScienceImpact2018 - noting that this was a sample of papers from 2005-2009, so it starts to get a little bit at my misgivings about generalizing from a sample from 2001 (although it also pushes in the opposite direction by focusing only on physics)