  Mathematical models of the scientific citation process predict a strong
"first-mover" effect under which the first papers in a field will, essentially
regardless of content, receive citations at a rate enormously higher than
papers published later. Moreover papers are expected to retain this advantage
in perpetuity -- they should receive more citations indefinitely, no matter how
many other papers are published after them. We test this conjecture against
data from a selection of fields and in several cases find a first-mover effect
of a magnitude similar to that predicted by the theory. Were we wearing our
cynical hat today, we might say that the scientist who wants to become famous
is better off -- by a wide margin -- writing a modest paper in next year's
hottest field than an outstanding paper in this year's. On the other hand,
there are some papers, albeit only a small fraction, that buck the trend and
attract significantly more citations than theory predicts despite having
relatively late publication dates. We suggest that papers of this kind, though
they often receive comparatively few citations overall, are probably worthy of
our attention.
