“Oh, really?” - a typical sarcastic reaction on social media.
However I urge to look at the original study and data more carefully. 👇
#phdchat #AcademicTwitter #research
However I urge to look at the original study and data more carefully. 👇
#phdchat #AcademicTwitter #research
- A disruptive paper is defined here by the likelihood that this paper (and not the references inside it) will be cited by subsequent studies.
- In contrast, a consolidating paper is the one that is less likely to be cited than its predecessors. It consolidates the discovery.
- In contrast, a consolidating paper is the one that is less likely to be cited than its predecessors. It consolidates the discovery.
Importantly, when only articles published in Nature, PNAS and Science or to Nobel-winning discoveries are considered, the downward trend STILL persists.
What explanation do authors suggest for the drop of disruptiveness?
What explanation do authors suggest for the drop of disruptiveness?
Let’s check their original study:
1. It is NOT that we have less ‘low-hanging fruits’ in science
2. Nor is it the diminishing quality of science and technology.
3. It's not due to used datasets.
4. Also, it is NOT due to changing publication, citation or authorship practices.
1. It is NOT that we have less ‘low-hanging fruits’ in science
2. Nor is it the diminishing quality of science and technology.
3. It's not due to used datasets.
4. Also, it is NOT due to changing publication, citation or authorship practices.
So, what is it then?
It's due to our reliance on a narrower scientific knowledge. In the study, the authors see (1) a decline in the use of previous knowledge, (2) increase in self-citation & continuation of pre-existing research, (3) the mean age of work cited is increasing.
It's due to our reliance on a narrower scientific knowledge. In the study, the authors see (1) a decline in the use of previous knowledge, (2) increase in self-citation & continuation of pre-existing research, (3) the mean age of work cited is increasing.
So, the growth in publishing (quantity of papers) leads to narrower research. Scientists have just got stuck in their own narrow subfields!! They cannot keep up with the pace of knowledge expansion and instead rely on older and familiar work.
This is WHY I am so much advocating for:
1. Getting out of your comfort research area and searching for new areas. Outside of your field.
2. Creating new interfaces between scientifically distinct areas! This is SO MUCH important if one wants to make a discovery.
1. Getting out of your comfort research area and searching for new areas. Outside of your field.
2. Creating new interfaces between scientifically distinct areas! This is SO MUCH important if one wants to make a discovery.
This is WHY at my Electrochemical Online Colloquium (@EChemColloquium) I invite a lot of speakers who do NOT work in electrochemistry directly. This is the only way to efficiently learn about the research in other fields and seek new prospects for your own.
Throughout my “career”, I have encountered tons of resistance from scientists. At faculty interviews, in grant proposals and everyday “scientific” life. Everyone defends the status quo.
Few places seek scientists who want to do new things.
It is enormously disappointing. 😢
Few places seek scientists who want to do new things.
It is enormously disappointing. 😢
Just in case you want to see more discussion of this post, check it on LinkedIn:
linkedin.com/posts/andrew-a…
linkedin.com/posts/andrew-a…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
