Early-career researchers do more groundbreaking science than older researchers

A large analysis of scientific papers suggests researchers are most likely to produce highly disruptive work near the beginning of their careers, while experienced scientists tend to build more on established ideas.

Scientists at the start of their careers are more likely to produce research that disrupts entire fields than their older and more experienced colleagues, according to a new analysis of papers published by millions of researchers over six decades.

The study found that, as researchers move further away from their first academic publication, their chances of producing highly disruptive work tend to decline. These kinds of papers are not simply important or widely cited; they reshape a field by making earlier research less central to future studies.

The researchers examined work from about 12.5 million scientists who published at least three papers between 1960 and 2020. Across scientific fields, they found that the probability of producing a paper ranked among the top 10% most disruptive declined with academic age.

The finding suggests that younger scientists may be more open to new ideas and less tied to established ways of thinking. By contrast, researchers later in their careers often become better at connecting existing ideas and building on previous knowledge, but they may be less likely to produce breakthroughs that overturn a field.

The authors describe part of this pattern as a kind of “nostalgia effect.” As scientists progress in their careers, they increasingly cite older papers rather than newer work. That may reflect the lasting influence of ideas that shaped them early on, but it could also slow the adoption of newer approaches.

To measure disruption, the team looked at how later studies cited a scientific paper. If future papers cited the work without also citing the older studies it was based on, that suggested the new paper had replaced or made earlier work less relevant. In that case, the paper was considered more disruptive.

The analysis also found that the paper a scientist cites most often during their career is usually published around two years before their own first paper. Researchers said this shows how strongly scientists can be shaped by the ideas circulating when they first enter their field.

The study does not suggest that senior researchers produce less valuable science. Instead, it points to a difference in the type of contribution scientists tend to make over time. More experienced researchers may be especially strong at consolidating knowledge, combining ideas and developing existing fields, while early-career researchers may be more likely to challenge old assumptions.

The findings also raise questions about how science is organized and funded. If younger researchers are more likely to produce disruptive ideas, systems that make it difficult for them to lead projects, win grants or publish independently could limit innovation.

The researchers also found that senior scientists can influence which ideas gain attention. In research teams where the corresponding author changed between publications, papers led by younger corresponding authors tended to cite newer references than papers led by older corresponding authors.