Editing Scientific citation (section)

=== Progress and citation consolidation ===
[[File:Papers and patents are using narrower portions of existing knowledge.png|thumb|Various results from scientific citation analysis<!--They may e.g. suggest papers are "using narrower portions of existing knowledge" according to one study.--><ref name="10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x"/><br/>([[commons:Category:Disruption analysis based on the CD index|more graphs]])]]
Two [[Meta-analysis|meta-analyses]] reported that in a growing [[scientific field]], citations disproportionately cite already well-cited papers, possibly slowing and inhibiting [[Progress#Scientific progress|progress]] to some degree. They find that "structures fostering disruptive scholarship and focusing attention on novel ideas" could be important.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Snyder |first1=Alison |title=New ideas are struggling to emerge from the sea of science |date=14 October 2021 |url=https://www.axios.com/science-new-ideas-dbe29601-010c-411a-b79d-bbd1388ec5a0.html |publisher=Axios |access-date=15 November 2021}}</ref><ref name="atlantic">{{cite news |last1=Thompson |first1=Derek |title=The Consolidation-Disruption Index Is Alarming |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/01/academia-research-scientific-papers-progress/672694/ |access-date=25 February 2023 |work=The Atlantic |date=11 January 2023 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Chu |first1=Johan S. G. |last2=Evans |first2=James A. |title=Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=12 October 2021 |volume=118 |issue=41 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2021636118 |pmid=34607941 |pmc=8522281 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11821636C |language=en |issn=0027-8424 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Other metascientists introduced the 'CD index' intended to characterize "how papers and patents change networks of citations in [[science]] and [[technology]]" and reported [[Metascience#Growth or stagnation of science overall|that it has declined]], which they interpreted as "[[progress|slowing rates]] of disruption". They proposed linking this to changes {{tooltip|to three "use of previous knowledge"-indicators|"the diversity of work cited, mean number of self-citations and mean age of work cited"}} which they interpreted as "contemporary [[Discovery (observation)#In science|discovery]] and [[invention]]" being informed by "a narrower scope of existing [[knowledge]]". The overall number of papers has risen while the total of "highly disruptive" papers has not. The [[1998 in science#Astronomy and space exploration|1998]] discovery of the [[accelerating expansion of the universe]] has a CD index of 0. Their results also suggest scientists and inventors "may be struggling to keep up with the pace of knowledge expansion".<ref>{{cite news |last1=Tejada |first1=Patricia Contreras |title=With fewer disruptive studies, is science becoming an echo chamber? |url=https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/with-fewer-disruptive-studies-is-science-becoming-an-echo-chamber/ |access-date=15 February 2023 |work=Advanced Science News |date=13 January 2023 |archive-date=15 February 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230215233007/https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/with-fewer-disruptive-studies-is-science-becoming-an-echo-chamber/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="atlantic"/><ref name="10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x">{{cite journal |last1=Park |first1=Michael |last2=Leahey |first2=Erin |last3=Funk |first3=Russell J. |title=Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time |journal=Nature |date=January 2023 |volume=613 |issue=7942 |pages=138–144 |doi=10.1038/s41586-022-05543-x |pmid=36600070 |language=en |issn=1476-4687|arxiv=2106.11184|bibcode=2023Natur.613..138P |s2cid=255466666 }}</ref>