I am really not convinced at all by the "Papers and patents are becoming less #disruptive over time" paper. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05543-x
The metric used (CD index and CD5) is highly problematic.
If I am not mistaken, 2 examples with Figure 5 (Nobel Prize-winning papers): the #discovery of reverse transcriptase (paper in 1970 baltimore, 1975 Nobel) & mobile element (Paper in 1950 McClintock Nobel 1983) are measured as ......non-disruptive
Really looks like an analysis of citation behavior to me (with a problematic metric) rather than an analysis of "disruptivity"
@AVerger I genuinely don't understand how this paper made it through peer-review.
Everything is wrong with it!
A literature review that people cite more than the article that is relies on will be counted as disruptive.
@askennard @CCochard yep and because many journals have now explicit limits on the number of references that can be included in one article, I guess it completely changes the analysis of the cited papers over time.