Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35737658›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Quantifying the rise and fall of scientific fields.

Chakresh Kumar Singh, Emma Barme, Robert Ward, Liubov Tupikina, Marc Santolini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Reimagining pharmacology education.Pharmacological reviews · 2026
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. What are patterns of rise and decline?Royal Society open science · 2023
    Review
  8. An epistemology for democratic citizen science.Royal Society open science · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Chakresh Kumar SinghUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, System Engineering and Evolution Dynamics, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6496-0778
Emma BarmeUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, System Engineering and Evolution Dynamics, Paris, France.
Robert WardSchool of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, United States of America.
Liubov TupikinaUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, System Engineering and Evolution Dynamics, Paris, France.
Marc SantoliniUniversité Paris Cité, Inserm, System Engineering and Evolution Dynamics, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1491-0120

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science advances by pushing the boundaries of the adjacent possible. While the global scientific enterprise grows at an exponential pace, at the mesoscopic level the exploration and exploitation of research ideas are reflected through the rise and fall of research fields. The empirical literature has largely studied such dynamics on a case-by-case basis, with a focus on explaining how and why communities of knowledge production evolve. Although fields rise and fall on different temporal and population scales, they are generally argued to pass through a common set of evolutionary stages. To understand the social processes that drive these stages beyond case studies, we need a way to quantify and compare different fields on the same terms. In this paper we develop techniques for identifying common patterns in the evolution of scientific fields and demonstrate their usefulness using 1.5 million preprints from the arXiv repository covering 175 research fields spanning Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology and Quantitative Finance. We show that fields consistently follow a rise and fall pattern captured by a two parameters right-tailed Gumbel temporal distribution. We introduce a field-specific re-scaled time and explore the generic properties shared by articles and authors at the creation, adoption, peak, and decay evolutionary phases. We find that the early phase of a field is characterized by disruptive works mixing of cognitively distant fields written by small teams of interdisciplinary authors, while late phases exhibit the role of specialized, large teams building on the previous works in the field. This method provides foundations to quantitatively explore the generic patterns underlying the evolution of research fields in science, with general implications in innovation studies.

Indexed as

PublicationsWritingPhysicsResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID35737658
PMCPMC9223313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.