{"id":372855,"date":"2026-06-02T10:06:03","date_gmt":"2026-06-02T10:06:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/?p=372855"},"modified":"2026-06-02T10:06:03","modified_gmt":"2026-06-02T10:06:03","slug":"aging-researchers-produce-more-creative-but-less-pioneering-studies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/?p=372855","title":{"rendered":"Aging Researchers Produce More Creative but Less Pioneering Studies"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>According to a fresh analysis of citation trends among over 12.5 million researchers who published three or more scholarly articles between 1960 and 2020, older researchers generate more innovative work. Nonetheless, they tend to create less disruptive research since they rely on previous studies instead of exploring entirely new avenues, explains co-author Lingfei Wu, an information scientist at the University of Pittsburgh.<\/p>\n<p>The research assessed disruption by determining whether subsequent citations of a study reference only the original paper or also include the sources listed in its bibliography. This method differentiates between viewing research as novel or incremental. Wu emphasizes that both types are crucial for scientific advancement; excessive novelty could lead to disorder, while excessive incrementalism could impede progress. Papers that validate prior knowledge, including those with negative results, are vital for spotting unproductive paths.<\/p>\n<p>Over a span of 40 years, around 65,000 scientists from various disciplines showed a declining tendency to undertake disruptive studies as they aged. Senior researchers, particularly in chemistry and biology, were among the least disruptive, while senior computer scientists ranked higher due to the fast-evolving methods in areas like artificial intelligence. Fundamental processes in biology and chemistry largely remain constant, which makes them less susceptible to disruption.<\/p>\n<p>Wu recommends that scientists engage with fundamentally new concepts early in their careers to yield disruptive findings, and later seek to apply that work by forging new connections among established ideas.<\/p>\n<p>Management researcher Russell Funk at the University of Minnesota describes Wu&#8217;s analysis as one of the most important science-on-science investigations in recent times. It reveals a pattern of increasing novelty paired with declining disruptiveness as researchers age, representing a &#8220;system-level&#8221; trend. Typically, a researcher\u2019s most-cited reference appears two years prior to their first publication and acts as an intellectual foundation, influencing their professional journey and affecting students, collaborators, and peer-reviewed publications.<\/p>\n<p>For policy considerations, Funk advocates for greater investment in early-career researchers, promoting multiple corresponding authors, and allowing junior researchers autonomy over their research paths. However, he expresses skepticism regarding the willingness of the system to adopt these changes, as career advancement in science often involves gaining gatekeeping authority, which entails costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>According to a fresh analysis of citation trends among over 12.5 million researchers who published three or more scholarly articles between 1960 and 2020, older researchers generate more innovative work. Nonetheless, they tend to create less disruptive research since they rely on previous studies instead of exploring entirely new avenues, explains co-author Lingfei Wu, an [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":372856,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"Default","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[174],"class_list":["post-372855","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-source-chemistryworld-com"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372855","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=372855"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/372855\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/372856"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=372855"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=372855"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wolfscientific.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=372855"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}