Paper by Johan S. G. Chu and James A. Evans: “The size of scientific fields may impede the rise of new ideas. Examining 1.8 billion citations among 90 million papers across 241 subjects, we find a deluge of papers does not lead to turnover of central ideas in a field, but rather to ossification of canon. Scholars in fields where many papers are published annually face difficulty getting published, read, and cited unless their work references already widely cited articles. New papers containing potentially important contributions cannot garner field-wide attention through gradual processes of diffusion. These findings suggest fundamental progress may be stymied if quantitative growth of scientific endeavors—in number of scientists, institutes, and papers—is not balanced by structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas…(More)”.
How to contribute:
Did you come across – or create – a compelling project/report/book/app at the leading edge of innovation in governance?
Share it with us at info@thelivinglib.org so that we can add it to the Collection!
About the Curator
Get the latest news right in you inbox
Subscribe to curated findings and actionable knowledge from The Living Library, delivered to your inbox every Friday
Related articles
DATA
A Global Relaunch of RD4C.org to Better Advance Responsible Data for Every Child, Everywhere
Posted in July 17, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
INSTITUTIONAL INNOVATION
Augmented foresight
Posted in July 17, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst
artificial intelligence
A foundation model to predict and capture human cognition
Posted in July 17, 2025 by Stefaan Verhulst