A major new study has found that scientists and inventors who switch to new research areas often see their work become less impactful. The research, published in the journal Nature, shows that the further a scientist moves away from their previous area of expertise, the less likely their new work is to be highly cited or influential.
The study was conducted by a team from several departments at Northwestern University, including the Center for Science of Science and Innovation, Kellogg School of Management, and McCormick School of Engineering, with contributions from the University of California, Berkeley, and Cornell University.
Researchers analyzed millions of scientific papers and patents from 1970 to 2020. They created a new way to measure how much a scientist “pivots” from their past work, using a scale from 0 (no change) to 1 (completely new area). They found that large shifts, called “pivots”, are common but come with a “pivot penalty”. This means that the more a researcher changes their field, the less likely their work is to be successful.
For example, papers that made the biggest jumps into new areas were only 2.2% likely to become highly cited, compared to 7.4% for those that stayed close to the author’s previous research. The same pattern was seen in patents: large pivots were much less likely to become important in their field.
The “pivot penalty” was found across almost all scientific and technological fields, and has become even more severe over the past five decades. The penalty applies to all researchers, no matter their career stage, productivity, collaboration, or funding situation.
The study also looked at special situations, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which forced many scientists to quickly change their research focus. Even in these urgent cases, the pivot penalty remained strong. Scientists who published COVID-19 research made much larger pivots than usual, but their work was less likely to have a big impact.
The researchers say these findings are important for science policy and organizations that want to encourage innovation. While exploring new areas is important for creativity and progress, it is also risky. Helping scientists adapt to new fields could lead to more breakthroughs and help society respond to new challenges.
