# Disruptive papers in science are losing impact

**Authors:** An Zeng, Ying Fan, Zengru Di, Yougui Wang, Shlomo Havlin  
**arXiv:** [2305.03589](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.03589)  
**Date:** 2023-05-05  
**Summary page:** https://www.summarizepaper.com/en/paper/2305.03589v1/

## Key points

- The study examines the relationship between citation and disruption metrics in scientific publications.
- Citation and disruption are critical dimensions used to evaluate the impact and originality of scientific papers.
- There is a decreasing trend from positive to negative correlations between citation and disruption over time.
- Highly disruptive studies are attracting less attention from the scientific community compared to highly cited papers.
- Papers citing older references, less popular references, and diverse references tend to have fewer citations themselves.
- Increasing information overload in science may contribute to the prominence of citations as a measure of impact.
- Research fields with higher publication rates exhibit a more negative correlation between citation and disruption.
- The authors analyze and compare six specific fields within science to validate their findings.

## Summary

In the study titled "Disruptive papers in science are losing impact," authors An Zeng, Ying Fan, Zengru Di, Yougui Wang, and Shlomo Havlin examine the relationship between citation and disruption metrics in scientific publications. Citation and disruption are two critical dimensions used to evaluate the impact and originality of scientific papers. While previous research has focused on understanding the statistical properties and evolution of these metrics individually, their interrelation remains unclear. The authors analyze the evolution of the correlation between citation and disruption over a span of 70 years. Surprisingly, they find a decreasing trend from positive to negative correlations over time. This suggests that highly disruptive studies are attracting less attention from the scientific community as compared to highly cited papers. In other words, there is a decline in the number of disruptive works among those that receive high citations. To support this finding, the authors examine the references cited in scientific papers. They observe that papers citing older references, less popular references, and diverse references tend to have fewer citations themselves. This trend further supports the notion that highly disruptive studies are receiving less attention. The authors propose possible explanations for this phenomenon. One reason could be the increasing information overload in science where researchers struggle to keep up with an overwhelming amount of published work; as a result citations become more prominent as a measure of impact since they provide a way for researchers to filter through vast amounts of information. Additionally, the authors find evidence that research fields with higher publication rates exhibit a more negative correlation between citation and disruption. This suggests that as research fields become saturated with numerous publications it becomes harder for truly disruptive works to stand out and gain recognition. Finally, to validate their findings across different disciplines, the authors analyze and compare six specific fields within science.