> Watts and his colleagues were skeptical of that finding. The original results were based on studies that included fewer than 90 children—all enrolled in a preschool on Stanford’s campus. In restaging the experiment, Watts and his colleagues thus adjusted the experimental design in important ways: The researchers used a sample that was much larger—more than 900 children—and also more representative of the general population in terms of race, ethnicity, and parents’ education. The researchers also, when analyzing their test’s results, controlled for certain factors—such as the income of a child’s household—that might explain children’s ability to delay gratification and their long-term success.
In other words: a more sensible reading of GP's comment would be as a reaction to said paragraph.
The quote you posted did not address that question. That is why it is not related to my comment, like I already said.
Fact is that academia is grossly overstaffed and under publication pressure. Most papers aren't worth much, especially in the social sciences.
Even in CS there are few seminal papers, and I mean the level of Tukey, Dana Scott, Pollard...