ArticleJournal of human capital2019
Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas.
Article in Journal of human capital, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Pooled it
- Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce: Innovative Pathways for Retaining and Supporting Physician-Scientists.NAM perspectives · 2026Review
- Does literature evolve one funeral at a time?Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- An Information Extraction Approach to Detecting Novelty of Biomedical Publications.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024Article
- Striking the right balance between youth and experience: An ageing scientific workforce could have unanticipated implications for innovation, creativity, and productivity.EMBO reports · 2023Article
- Publish or Perish: Selective Attrition as a Unifying Explanation for Patterns in Innovation over the Career.The Journal of human resources · 2023Article
- Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding.PloS one · 2023Article
- Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Novel approach for tracking interdisciplinary research productivity using institutional databases.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2022Article
- Generational differences in international research collaboration: A bibliometric study of Norwegian University staff.PloS one · 2021Article
- Edge Factors: Scientific Frontier Positions of Nations.Scientometrics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aging of the scientific workforce and graying of grant recipients are central policy concerns in biomedicine. These trends are potentially important because older scientists are often seen as less open to new ideas than younger scientists. In this paper, we put this hypothesis to an empirical test. Using a measure of new ideas derived from the text of nearly all biomedical scientific articles published since 1946, we compare the tendency of younger and older researchers to try out new ideas in their work. We find that papers published in biomedicine by younger researchers are more likely to build on new ideas. Collaboration with an experienced researcher matters as well. Papers with a young first author and a more experienced last author are more likely to try out newer ideas than papers published by other team configurations. Given the crucial role that the trying out of new ideas plays in the advancement of science, our results buttress the case for funding scientific work by young researchers but also provide a caution against unconditional idolatry of youth over experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.