Opinion: Strengthen science by funding living evidence synthesis
A recent high-profile paper suggesting that science is becoming dramatically less disruptive set the academic world abuzz. One interpretation of this finding — though by no means the only one — is that the exponential growth of the scientific literature has led researchers to build off older and increasingly narrow slices of the research landscape. Indeed, an earlier study showed that as fields grow, attention consolidates around foundational papers at the expense of newer work. In the busiest fields, the top 1% of cited papers remain frozen in time, while virtually no new research enters their ranks.
Engagement with a broad range of knowledge is critical for innovation. So although “scientists are increasingly citing famous work” sounds somewhat innocuous, the underlying knowledge overload poses a genuine threat. If our processes fail to adapt, a continued flood of papers could lead to further slowing of transformative science, more redundant studies, less efficient targeting of knowledge gaps, and decreased uptake of cutting-edge research.
Read Original Article: Opinion: Strengthen science by funding living evidence synthesis »
