Please stop justifying the "growing interest" in the field with a pubmed search. It& #39;s hard to find a keyword where there ISN& #39;T an increase in papers. Here& #39;s e.g."banana".

I award a virtual banana for anyone who can show me a keyword for which the plot shows the reverse pattern.

My twitter likes have long surpassed the Pubmed hits for "twitter likes".

Good morning - I woke up to a tweet that went bananas over night. A short follow-up.

Some people rightly pointed out that bananas actually ARE an important research field (nutrition in developing countries, serious diseases of bananas ...). So, yes, my example wasn& #39;t ideal.
1/4

Gotta be honest here, I just typed in the first random word that came to my mind. As an ignorant neuroscientist, I didn& #39;t know that Pubmed& #39;s description ("biomedical literature" and "life science") also extends to plants. (Yes, I know that plants live.)
2/4

Even though I appreciate bananas more now (still won& #39;t eat them, though), the problem still stands: Search hits are useless if not normalised. Do bananas see the increase in research they deserve? We won& #39;t know if we don& #39;t correct for the number of papers in plant science.
3/4

There might even be an increase in banana research. Or your favourite field. I just don& #39;t believe it& #39;s that steep. As long as things like phrenology look like this, leave me alone with your raw numbers.

That& #39;s all, folks. Please don& #39;t place banana skins in front of my door.
4/4