Showing 1–3 of 3 results for author: Park, M

Serendipity in Science

Authors: Pyung Nahm, Raviv Murciano-Goroff, Michael Park, Russell J. Funk

Abstract: Serendipity plays an important role in scientific discovery. Indeed, many of the most important breakthroughs, ranging from penicillin to the electric battery, have been made by scientists who were stimulated by a chance exposure to unsought but useful information. However, not all scientists are equally likely to benefit from such serendipitous exposure. Although scholars generally agree that sci… ▽ More Serendipity plays an important role in scientific discovery. Indeed, many of the most important breakthroughs, ranging from penicillin to the electric battery, have been made by scientists who were stimulated by a chance exposure to unsought but useful information. However, not all scientists are equally likely to benefit from such serendipitous exposure. Although scholars generally agree that scientists with a prepared mind are most likely to benefit from serendipitous encounters, there is much less consensus over what precisely constitutes a prepared mind, with some research suggesting the importance of openness and others emphasizing the need for deep prior experience in a particular domain. In this paper, we empirically investigate the role of serendipity in science by leveraging a policy change that exogenously shifted the shelving location of journals in university libraries and subsequently exposed scientists to unsought scientific information. Using large-scale data on 2.4 million papers published in 9,750 journals by 520,000 scientists at 115 North American research universities, we find that scientists with greater openness are more likely to benefit from serendipitous encounters. Following the policy change, these scientists tended to cite less familiar and newer work, and ultimately published papers that were more innovative. By contrast, we find little effect on innovativeness for scientists with greater depth of experience, who, in our sample, tended to cite more familiar and older work following the policy change. △ Less

Submitted 14 August, 2023; originally announced August 2023.

Interdisciplinary Papers Supported by Disciplinary Grants Garner Deep and Broad Scientific Impact

Authors: Minsu Park, Suman Kalyan Maity, Stefan Wuchty, Dashun Wang

Abstract: Interdisciplinary research has emerged as a hotbed for innovation and a key approach to addressing complex societal challenges. The increasing dominance of grant-supported research in shaping scientific advances, coupled with growing interest in funding interdisciplinary work, raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of interdisciplinary grants in fostering high-impact interdisciplinar… ▽ More Interdisciplinary research has emerged as a hotbed for innovation and a key approach to addressing complex societal challenges. The increasing dominance of grant-supported research in shaping scientific advances, coupled with growing interest in funding interdisciplinary work, raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of interdisciplinary grants in fostering high-impact interdisciplinary research outcomes. Here, we quantify the interdisciplinarity of both research grants and publications, capturing 350,000 grants from 164 funding agencies across 26 countries and 1.3 million papers that acknowledged their support from 1985 to 2009. Our analysis uncovers two seemingly contradictory patterns: Interdisciplinary grants tend to produce interdisciplinary papers, which are generally associated with high impact. However, compared to disciplinary grants, interdisciplinary grants on average yield fewer papers and interdisciplinary papers they support tend to have substantially reduced impact. We demonstrate that the key to explaining this paradox lies in the power of disciplinary grants in propelling high-impact interdisciplinary research. Specifically, our results show that highly interdisciplinary papers supported by deeply disciplinary grants garner disproportionately more citations, both within their core disciplines and from broader fields. Moreover, disciplinary grants, particularly when combined with other similar grants, are more effective in producing high-impact interdisciplinary research. Amidst the rapid rise of support for interdisciplinary work across the sciences, these results highlight the hitherto unknown role of disciplinary grants in driving crucial interdisciplinary advances, suggesting that interdisciplinary research requires deep disciplinary expertise and investments. △ Less

Submitted 14 March, 2025; v1 submitted 26 March, 2023; originally announced March 2023.

The decline of disruptive science and technology

Authors: Michael Park, Erin Leahey, Russell Funk

Abstract: Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes, wherein prior accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, "stand on the shoulders of giants". Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ri… ▽ More Theories of scientific and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes, wherein prior accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton's words, "stand on the shoulders of giants". Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientific and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances. Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major fields of science and technology. Here, we analyze these claims at scale across 6 decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.5 million patents from 6 large-scale datasets. We find that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions, a pattern that holds universally across fields. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of prior knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the "shoulders of giants" view. We find that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices, or field-specific factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may reflect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology. △ Less

Submitted 23 July, 2022; v1 submitted 21 June, 2021; originally announced June 2021.