<p>Over on biostars there's a thread like this every year or so. I'll link to <a href="https://www.biostars.org/p/229807/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the 2016 edition</a> and the (much shorter) <a href="https://www.biostars.org/p/171860/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2015 edition</a>.</p>

<p>My personal picks from those would be:</p>

<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7616/full/nature19057.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ExAC</a></li>
<li><a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/06/27/021592" rel="nofollow noreferrer">salmon</a>, which is now published</li>
<li><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02710" rel="nofollow noreferrer">kallisto</a>, which is also now published</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-23T19:15:08.387Z
2017-05-23T19:15:08.387Z
Devon Ryan
<p>As a newcomer, what are some influential research papers published in the past few years that I should read to catch up in the field?</p>

<p>Edit: @Devon Ryan answered it perfectly. I tried a google search but it turned up a bunch of opinionated articles that varied. The biostar discussions are perfect and was the link I was searching for. I hope someone else new to the field finds this useful!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-23T19:39:06.880Z
I think this is far too broad and opinion based for this site
Chris_Rands
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-23T19:58:41.540Z
I was pretty sure someone would point that out. It depends on how broad of a range we want to cover. Are we just here to answer specific technical questions? Or is this going to be more of a community? I personally agree and think this question might be better for the bioinformatics subreddit or Biostar.  I was just testing the waters while looking for an answer.
EMiller
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-23T20:43:43.257Z
EMiller, The concern with this question is there's no problem statement... so the question is to generate an unbounded list of whatever folks care to post. An occastional, well-regarded "big list" question isn't generally a problem unless it becomes excessive, but please be careful of the inference that, if folks don't agree, this "isn't a community." I don't believe that was your intention here, but folks sometimes throw that out there as a backhanded way to discourage further discussion.
Robert Cartaino
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-24T11:56:52.510Z
@EMiller there are some rules that apply to all Stack Exchange sites. The SE model is strictly Q&A so broad, discussion-based questions or requests whose answer will perforce be a long list (such as this one) will always be too broad.
terdon
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-24T19:03:25.893Z
@terdon "there are some rules that apply to all Stack Exchange sites. The SE model is strictly Q&A". I thought it was up to the moderators to decide when a question is unfit. That's a pity because on biostars I find questions like this often very interesting and still the volume of "bad" questions isn't too annoying, IMHO. Personally I don't see much point in having a site strictly for Q&A and another for general discussion. As I said, biostars is both and works well for me. Just my 2p...
dariober
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-05-25T14:16:43.940Z
@Robert I meant that a new commer with a specific question could just pop in and ask a question, without watching the community first like you might have to somewhere like biostar.
EMiller
<literature-search>
Influential papers in bioinformatics
# Influential papers in bioinformatics

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-05-23)

As a newcomer, what are some influential research papers published in the past few years that I should read to catch up in the field?

Edit: @Devon Ryan answered it perfectly. I tried a google search but it turned up a bunch of opinionated articles that varied. The biostar discussions are perfect and was the link I was searching for. I hope someone else new to the field finds this useful!

**Tags:** literature-search
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think this is far too broad and opinion based for this site  
> **username_0**: I was pretty sure someone would point that out. It depends on how broad of a range we want to cover. Are we just here to answer specific technical questions? Or is this going to be more of a community? I personally agree and think this question might be better for the bioinformatics subreddit or Biostar.  I was just testing the waters while looking for an answer.  
> **username_2**: EMiller, The concern with this question is there's no problem statement... so the question is to generate an unbounded list of whatever folks care to post. An occastional, well-regarded "big list" question isn't generally a problem unless it becomes excessive, but please be careful of the inference that, if folks don't agree, this "isn't a community." I don't believe that was your intention here, but folks sometimes throw that out there as a backhanded way to discourage further discussion.  
> **username_3**: @EMiller there are some rules that apply to all Stack Exchange sites. The SE model is strictly Q&A so broad, discussion-based questions or requests whose answer will perforce be a long list (such as this one) will always be too broad.  
> **username_4**: @terdon "there are some rules that apply to all Stack Exchange sites. The SE model is strictly Q&A". I thought it was up to the moderators to decide when a question is unfit. That's a pity because on biostars I find questions like this often very interesting and still the volume of "bad" questions isn't too annoying, IMHO. Personally I don't see much point in having a site strictly for Q&A and another for general discussion. As I said, biostars is both and works well for me. Just my 2p...  
> **username_0**: @Robert I meant that a new commer with a specific question could just pop in and ask a question, without watching the community first like you might have to somewhere like biostar.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-05-23. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Over on biostars there's a thread like this every year or so. I'll link to [the 2016 edition](https://www.biostars.org/p/229807/) and the (much shorter) [2015 edition](https://www.biostars.org/p/171860/).

My personal picks from those would be:

* [ExAC](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7616/full/nature19057.html)
* [salmon](http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/06/27/021592), which is now published
* [kallisto](http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.02710), which is also now published


---

