  Citations between scientific papers and related bibliometric indices, such as
the $h$-index for authors and the impact factor for journals, are being
increasingly used - often in controversial ways - as quantitative tools for
research evaluation. Yet, a fundamental research question remains still open:
to which extent do quantitative metrics capture the significance of scientific
works? We analyze the network of citations among the $449,935$ papers published
by the American Physical Society (APS) journals between 1893 and 2009, and
focus on the comparison of metrics built on the citation count with
network-based metrics. We contrast five article-level metrics with respect to
the rankings that they assign to a set of fundamental papers, called Milestone
Letters, carefully selected by the APS editors for "making long-lived
contributions to physics, either by announcing significant discoveries, or by
initiating new areas of research". A new metric, which combines PageRank
centrality with the explicit requirement that paper score is not biased by
paper age, is the best-performing metric overall in identifying the Milestone
Letters. The lack of time bias in the new metric makes it also possible to use
it to compare papers of different age on the same scale. We find that
network-based metrics identify the Milestone Letters better than metrics based
on the citation count, which suggests that the structure of the citation
network contains information that can be used to improve the ranking of
scientific publications. The methods and results presented here are relevant
for all evolving systems where network centrality metrics are applied, for
example the World Wide Web and online social networks. An interactive Web
platform where it is possible to view the ranking of the APS papers by rescaled
PageRank is available at the address \url{http://www.sciencenow.info}.
