  A long-standing research question in bibliometrics is how one identifies
publications, which represent major advances in their fields, making high
impact in there and other areas. In this context, the term "Breakthrough" is
often used and commonly used approaches rely on citation links between
publications implicitly positing that peers who use or build upon previously
published results collectively inform about their standing in terms of
advancing the research frontiers.
  Here we argue that the "Breakthrough" concept is rooted in the Kuhnian model
of scientific revolution which has been both conceptually and empirically
challenged. A more fruitful approach is to consider various ways in which
authoritative actors in scholarly communication system signal the importance of
research results. We bring to discussions different "recognition channels" and
pilot the creation of an open dataset of editorial highlights from regular
lists of notable research advances. The dataset covers the last ten years and
includes: the "discoveries of the year" from Science magazine and La Recherche
and weekly editorial highlights from Nature ("research highlights") and Science
("editor's choice"). The final dataset includes 230 entries in the "discoveries
of the years" (with over 720 references) and about 9,000 weekly highlights
(with over 8,000 references).
