Does science advance one funeral at a time?
One paper morbidly suggests so: "after the death of a star scientist, the flow of articles by non-collaborators [of the deceased] increases markedly [...] and is disproportionately likely to be highly cited."
The top 1% most-cited scientists account for 21% of citations. So a star's death leads to a citation vacuum, allowing lesser known researchers the chance to advance and reform the field.
@erinnacland @academicchatter
I think it's a power thing. Funding decisions are centralized into a few people. They can either centralize the funding for its own projects or target it towards projects they like. And something similar can happen in peer review. If a prominent researcher says that the paper is bad it might not be due it's content but it might be contrary to its own work. Then when a prominent researcher dies it creates a power vacuum and everyone rush to take it's place.
