Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More information

Park 2023 Nature

From Bioblast
Publications in the MiPMap
Park M, Leahey E, Funk RJ (2023) Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613:138-44. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x

» PMID: 36600070 Open Access

Park M, Leahey E, Funk RJ (2023) Nature

Abstract: Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes1,2, wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, 'stand on the shoulders of giants'3-7. Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances8,9. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields10,11. Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric-the CD index12-that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across fields and is robust across multiple different citation- and text-based metrics1,13-17. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the 'shoulders of giants' view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.

Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E

Selected quotes

  • Papers, patents and even grant applications have become less novel relative to prior work and less likely to connect disparate areas of knowledge, both of which are precursors of innovation21,22.
  • First, some contributions improve existing streams of knowledge, and therefore consolidate the status quo. .. Second, some contributions disrupt existing knowledge, rendering it obsolete, and propelling science and technology in new directions.
  • We quantify this distinction using a measure — the CD index 12 — that characterizes the consolidating or disruptive nature of science and technology (Fig. 1). The intuition is that if a paper or patent is disruptive, the subsequent work that cites it is less likely to also cite its predecessors; for future researchers, the ideas that went into its production are less relevant (for example, Pauling’s triple helix). If a paper or patent is consolidating, subsequent work that cites it is also more likely to cite its predecessors; for future researchers, the knowledge upon which the work builds is still (and perhaps more) relevant ...
  • .. declining aggregate disruptiveness does not preclude individual highly disruptive works.
  • .. the growth in publishing and patenting may lead scientists and inventors to focus on narrower slices of previous work 18,46, thereby limiting the ‘effective’ stock of knowledge.
  • First, we see a decline in the diversity of work cited (Fig. 6a,d), indicating that contemporary science and technology are engaging with narrower slices of existing knowledge. .. Over time, scientists and inventors are increasingly citing the same previous work, and that previous work is becoming more topically similar.
  • Second, we see an increase in self-citation ..
  • Third, the mean age of work cited, a common measure for the use of dated knowledge50–52, is increasing (Fig. 6c,f), suggesting that scientists and inventors may be struggling to keep up with the pace of knowledge expansion and instead relying on older, familiar work.
  • .. use of less diverse work, more of one’s own work and older work are all negatively associated with disruption.
  • Relying on narrower slices of knowledge benefits individual careers53, but not scientific progress more generally.
  • To promote disruptive science and technology, scholars may be encouraged to read widely and given time to keep up with the rapidly expanding knowledge frontier. Universities may forgo the focus on quantity, and more strongly reward research quality 56, and perhaps more fully subsidize year-long sabbaticals.

Der Standard

» https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000142288735/es-gibt-immer-weniger-bahnbrechende-wissenschaftliche-arbeiten
  • Comment Gnaiger E (2023-01-05): Exponentielles Wachstum ist kein nachhaltiges Konzept. Diese unwiderlegbare mathematische Tatsache propagieren WissenschaftlerInnen ohne Integration in den eigenen Verhaltenskodex (Ausnahmen: DORA). Danke an die STANDARD-Wissenschaftsredaktion, daß Sie den Nature-Artikel aufgegriffen haben. Springer-Nature hat diese Botschaft nicht in ihr Geschäftsmodell übernommen. Es fehlt nicht nur an fundamentalem Willen zur Innovation. Epigonen sind immer in der Mehrzahl, aber Innovation ist kein demokratisches - und noch weniger ein autokratisches - Konzept. Es fehlt an der Umsetzung. Hier ein Beitrag: Gnaiger E (2021) Beyond counting papers – a mission and vision for scientific publication. https://doi.org/10.26124/bec:2021-0005