🔥Telegram İfşa

'Disruptive' science has plummeted — and no one knows why. Research in the 2000s is much more likely to incrementally push science forward than to veer off in a new direction. Check out my latest for nature with Russell Funk, Dashun Wang, Yian Yin nature.com/articles/d4158…

Amazing work out today in nature by Michael Park, Erin Leahy and Russel Funk on the decline of disruptive work across science & tech!

What better way to start the new year by reflecting on scientific progress? A @nature paper published today finds that scientific articles and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Congratulations Michael Park Russell Funk and Erin Lehey! nature.com/articles/s4158…

The paper is accompanied by an excellent news report by Max Kozlov 🇺🇦 that includes some quotes from the corresponding author, Russell Funk and from some excellent researchers not involved in the study Dashun Wang, Yian Yin and John Walsh nature.com/articles/d4158…

‘Disruptive’ science has declined — and no one knows why go.nature.com/3VIPv3Z

New Nature paper provides evidence that science has become less innovative since the 1950s. The authors suggest reversing the trend by: 1. reading widely, 2. focusing less on quantity of papers, & more on research quality, 3. taking year-long sabbaticals. nature.com/articles/s4158…

Excited to share that our latest research—showing a decline in disruptive papers and patents—has been featured on the cover of Nature! nature.com/articles/s4158… Michael Park

Nature research paper: Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time go.nature.com/3Zq26ML

Papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions, according to an analysis of 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from across six decades published in nature. go.nature.com/3IzOYON

Just wanted to briefly respond to some great questions on the role of review articles in our study on disruptive papers and patents. I'd like to clarify that review articles were excluded from our analysis. nature.com/articles/s4158…

Where has all the disruptive science gone? nyti.ms/3QL3GVg

via ⁦The New York Times⁩ Thank you for for the great coverage of our work! ⁦William J. Broad⁩ ⁦Russell Funk⁩ nytimes.com/2023/01/17/sci…

It's always nice when your favorite news outlet (so for me, The New York Times ) covers a research paper you handled at @nature! congratulations again Michael Park Russell Funk and Erin Leahey! nytimes.com/2023/01/17/sci…

Editorial: Is science really getting less disruptive — and does it matter if it is? go.nature.com/3RdYpG1

Some home truths about declining research productivity, innovation and disruption. Download the latest Future Tense podcast with @irmorus1 John Van Reenen Michael Park and Jay Bhattacharya abc.net.au/radionational/…

Coolest paper I’ve seen at @StrategySci conference- this paper uses changes in library classification to understand how these changes affect serendipity. journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/AM…

The first paper I’m highlighting is one that @nature published last January: Using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents it finds that the percentage of disruptive science is decreasing with time Russell Funk Michael Park et al nature.com/articles/s4158…

I appreciate the conversation on our work and the analysis by Holst et al (arxiv.org/abs/2402.14583) (discussed in this thread today: x.com/svalver/status…).

INSEAD OB is hiring this year! insead.edu/faculty-resear… Looking for a "macro OB" researcher at either rookie or advanced assistant level. Based in France.