ArticleScientific reports2025
Quantifying the dynamics of peak disruption in scientific careers.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We examine the disruption of researchers with long-lived careers in Computer Science and Physics. Despite the epistemological differences between such disciplines, we consistently find that a researcher's most disruptive publication does not occur at random during their career, as it cannot be explained by a null model. Such publication is accompanied by a peak year in which researchers publish other work that exhibits a higher level of disruption than average. Through a series of linear models, we show that the disruption achieved by a researcher during their peak year is higher when it is preceded by a long period of focus and low productivity. These findings are in stark contrast with the dynamics of academic impact. In these dynamics, researchers are incentivized by the prevalent paradigms of scientific evaluation to pursue high productivity and incremental-less disruptive-work, as evidenced by extensive literature.
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.