This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Arts, S., Melluso, N., & Veugelers, R. (2025). Beyond citations: Measuring novel scientific ideas and their impact in publication text. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01561ArtsS.MellusoN.VeugelersR. (2025). Beyond citations: Measuring novel scientific ideas and their impact in publication text. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01561Search in Google Scholar
Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J., & Webb, M. (2020). Are ideas getting harder to find? American Economic Review, 110(4), 1104-1144. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180338BloomN.JonesC. I.Van ReenenJ.WebbM. (2020). Are ideas getting harder to find?American Economic Review, 110(4), 1104-1144. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20180338Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Devarakonda, S., Tekles, A., & Chacko, G. (2020a). Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1242-1259. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00068BornmannL.DevarakondaS.TeklesA.ChackoG. (2020a). Are disruption index indicators convergently valid? The comparison of several indicator variants with assessments by peers. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1242-1259. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00068Search in Google Scholar
Bornmann, L., Devarakonda, S., Tekles, A., & Chacko, G. (2020b). Disruptive papers published in scientometrics: Meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019). Scientometrics, 123(2), 1149-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8BornmannL.DevarakondaS.TeklesA.ChackoG. (2020b). Disruptive papers published in scientometrics: Meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019). Scientometrics, 123(2), 1149-1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03406-8Search in Google Scholar
Chai, S., & Menon, A. (2019). Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention. Research Policy, 48(3), 733-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.006ChaiS.MenonA. (2019). Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention. Research Policy, 48(3), 733-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.006Search in Google Scholar
Chu, J. S. G., & Evans, J. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118ChuJ. S.G.EvansJ. A. (2021). Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118(41), e2021636118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2021636118Search in Google Scholar
Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Boerner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojevic, S., Petersen, A. M., Radicchi, F., Sinatra, R., Uzzi, B., Vespignani, A., Waltman, L., Wang, D., & Barabasi, A.-L. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6379), eaao0185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185FortunatoS.BergstromC. T.BoernerK.EvansJ. A.HelbingD.MilojevicS.PetersenA. M.RadicchiF.SinatraR.UzziB.VespignaniA.WaltmanL.WangD.BarabasiA.-L. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6379), eaao0185. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185Search in Google Scholar
Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875-908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415601618FosterJ. G.RzhetskyA.EvansJ. A. (2015). Tradition and innovation in scientists’ research strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875-908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415601618Search in Google Scholar
Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63(3), 791-817. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366FunkR. J.Owen-SmithJ. (2017). A dynamic network measure of technological change. Management Science, 63(3), 791-817. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366Search in Google Scholar
Jones, B. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder? The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.xJonesB. F. (2009). The burden of knowledge and the “death of the renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder?The Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 283-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00531.xSearch in Google Scholar
Jones, B. F., & Weinberg, B. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(47), 18910-18914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102895108JonesB. F.WeinbergB. A. (2011). Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(47), 18910-18914. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102895108Search in Google Scholar
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259-1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357JonesB. F.WuchtyS.UzziB. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259-1262. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357Search in Google Scholar
Leibel, C., & Bornmann, L. (2024). What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature. Scientometrics, 129, 601–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04873-5LeibelC.BornmannL. (2024). What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature. Scientometrics, 129, 601–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04873-5Search in Google Scholar
Li, H., Tessone, C. J., & Zeng, A. (2024). Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(21), e2322462121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322462121LiH.TessoneC. J.ZengA. (2024). Productive scientists are associated with lower disruption in scientific publishing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(21), e2322462121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2322462121Search in Google Scholar
Li, L., Lin, Y., & Wu, L. (2024). Displacing science. arXiv.https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.16839LiL.LinY.WuL. (2024). Displacing science. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.16839Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Evans, J. A., & Wu, L. (2022). New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101234LinY.EvansJ. A.WuL. (2022). New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord. Journal of Informetrics, 16(1), 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101234Search in Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Frey, C. B., & Wu, L. (2023). Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas. Nature, 623(7989), 987-991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06767-1LinY.FreyC. B.WuL. (2023). Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas. Nature, 623(7989), 987-991. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06767-1Search in Google Scholar
Liu, X., Bu, Y., Li, M., & Li, J. (2024). Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(1), 59-78. https://doi. org/10.1002/asi.24840LiuX.BuY.LiM.LiJ. (2024). Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 75(1), 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24840Search in Google Scholar
Macher, J. T., Rutzer, C., & Weder, R. (2024). Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias. Research Policy, 53(5), 104992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992MacherJ. T.RutzerC.WederR. (2024). Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias. Research Policy, 53(5), 104992. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.104992Search in Google Scholar
Park, M., Leahey, E., & Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-xParkM.LeaheyE.FunkR. J. (2023). Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature, 613(7942), 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05543-xSearch in Google Scholar
Petersen, A. M., Arroyave, F., & Pammolli, F. (2024). The disruption index is biased by citation inflation. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 936-953. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00333PetersenA. M.ArroyaveF.PammolliF. (2024). The disruption index is biased by citation inflation. Quantitative Science Studies, 5(4), 936-953. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00333Search in Google Scholar
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S., & Castellano, C. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17268-17272. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105RadicchiF.FortunatoS.CastellanoC. (2008). Universality of citation distributions: Toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(45), 17268-17272. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.0806977105Search in Google Scholar
Ruan, X., Lyu, D., Gong, K., Cheng, Y., & Li, J. (2021). Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121071RuanX.LyuD.GongK.ChengY.LiJ. (2021). Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 172, 121071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121071Search in Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474UzziB.MukherjeeS.StringerM.JonesB. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342(6157), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474Search in Google Scholar
Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007WaltmanL. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 365-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9WangJ. (2013). Citation time window choice for research impact evaluation. Scientometrics, 94(3), 851-872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0775-9Search in Google Scholar
Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006WangJ.VeugelersR.StephanP. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46(8), 1416-1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006Search in Google Scholar
Wu, L. F., Wang, D. S., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9WuL. F.WangD. S.EvansJ. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566(7744), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9Search in Google Scholar
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099WuchtyS.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036-1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J. (2024). Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research. Journal of Informetrics, 18(1), 101480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101480YangA. J. (2024). Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research. Journal of Informetrics, 18(1), 101480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101480Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J. (2025). Unraveling topic switching and innovation in science. Information Processing & Management, 62(4), 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104171YangA. J. (2025). Unraveling topic switching and innovation in science. Information Processing & Management, 62(4), 104171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104171Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., & Deng, S. (2024). Dynamic patterns of the disruptive and consolidating knowledge flows in Nobel-winning scientific breakthroughs. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00323YangA. J.DengS. (2024). Dynamic patterns of the disruptive and consolidating knowledge flows in Nobel-winning scientific breakthroughs. Quantitative Science Studies, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00323Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., Deng, S., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., & Yang, W. (2023). Disruptive coefficient and 2-step disruptive coefficient: Novel measures for identifying vital nodes in complex networks. Journal of Informetrics, 17(3), 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101411YangA. J.DengS.WangH.ZhangY.YangW. (2023). Disruptive coefficient and 2-step disruptive coefficient: Novel measures for identifying vital nodes in complex networks. Journal of Informetrics, 17(3), 101411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101411Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., Gong, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, C., & Deng, S. (2024). Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science. Scientometrics, 129(1), 561-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04889-xYangA. J.GongH.WangY.ZhangC.DengS. (2024). Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science. Scientometrics, 129(1), 561-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-023-04889-xSearch in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., Hu, H., Zhao, Y., Wang, H., & Deng, S. (2023). From consolidation to disruption: A novel way to measure the impact of scientists and identify laureates. Information Processing & Management, 60(5), 103420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103420YangA. J.HuH.ZhaoY.WangH.DengS. (2023). From consolidation to disruption: A novel way to measure the impact of scientists and identify laureates. Information Processing & Management, 60(5), 103420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2023.103420Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., Xu, H., Ding, Y., & Liu, M. (2024). Unveiling the dynamics of team age structure and its impact on scientific innovation. Scientometrics, 129, 6127–6148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04987-4YangA. J.XuH.DingY.LiuM. (2024). Unveiling the dynamics of team age structure and its impact on scientific innovation. Scientometrics, 129, 6127–6148. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04987-4Search in Google Scholar
Yang, A. J., Yan, X., Hu, H., Hu, H., Kong, J., & Deng, S. (2025). Are disruptive papers more likely to impact technology and society? Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(3), 563-579. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24947YangA. J.YanX.HuH.HuH.KongJ.DengS. (2025). Are disruptive papers more likely to impact technology and society?Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 76(3), 563-579. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24947Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Y., Tian, T. Y., Woodruff, T. K., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2022). Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(36), e2200841119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119YangY.TianT. Y.WoodruffT. K.JonesB. F.UzziB. (2022). Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(36), e2200841119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200841119Search in Google Scholar
Zeng, A., Fan, Y., Di, Z., Wang, Y., & Havlin, S. (2023). Disruptive papers in science are losing impact. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.03589ZengA.FanY.DiZ.WangY.HavlinS. (2023). Disruptive papers in science are losing impact. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.03589Search in Google Scholar
Zeng, A., Shen, Z. S., Zhou, J. L., Wu, J. S., Fan, Y., Wang, Y. G., & Stanley, H. E. (2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714, 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. physrep.2017.10.001ZengA.ShenZ. S.ZhouJ. L.WuJ. S.FanY.WangY. G.StanleyH. E. (2017). The science of science: From the perspective of complex systems. Physics Reports, 714, 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2017.10.001Search in Google Scholar