网曝门

Scientists face ‘pivot penalty’ for changing research focus

<网曝门 class="standfirst">Even extreme interest in Covid-19 science was not enough to overcome citation loss associated with switching to a different research track, say US economists
五月 28, 2025
Railway tracks
Source: iStock/florin1961

Scientists who switch the focus of their research to tackle emerging challenges receive significantly fewer citations for their new work, a Nature study has found.

Analysing more than 25 million papers published over a 45-year period, US researchers found that a pervasive “pivot penalty” applied “near universally across science” as the “impact of new research steeply declines the further a researcher moves away from their previous work”.

The pivot penalty was also evident for those researchers who switched their research to focus on Covid-19 during the pandemic, explains the paper on 28 May.

While there was some “premium associated with Covid-19 papers”, as evidenced by an “upward shift in journal placement” attributed to the “extreme interest in the pandemic”, researchers who switched to Covid-related topics faced a 61 per cent lower “hit rate’’ (the likelihood of their papers featuring in the top 5 per cent of cited outputs) compared with similar non-pivoted Covid-era papers, the study finds.

The findings underscore the “central tension for individual researchers” asked to move into new areas of science in response to external opportunities, explains the Nature study, which highlights how “working in a high-demand area has value, but pivoting leads to penalties that offset it”.

That could reflect how “high-impact research is characterized primarily by highly conventional mixtures of prior knowledge but also tending to inject, simultaneously, a small dose of atypical combinations that are unusual in previous research”, suggest the authors based at Northwestern University, Cornell University and the University of California, Berkeley, as well as the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

“Larger pivots further exhibit weak engagement with established mixtures of prior knowledge, lower publication success rates and less market impact,” the paper adds.

The paper also has implications, in particular, for younger researchers tempted to move into a different specialism given that “the pivot penalty appears regardless of career stage, including very early in the career”.

While highlighting the need for adaptability and the ability to find “fresh perspectives”, researchers should be aware about the “present challenges associated with adjusting to a different topic or discipline.”

“The findings highlight the challenges of adapting to new fields of research. Studying the consequences of such pivots may help to inform approaches to improve adaptive success,” the authors conclude.

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.
<网曝门 class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (1)
new
Fascinating to read the findings of that paper. It's of particular interest at the moment given there is an entire generation of ECRs who came through during the halycon days of GCRF and have now had the rug pulled from under them by successive governments cutting ODA funding. If this research is accurate (and obviously more work needs to be done) then an entire generation of academics will have their careers hindered (or ruined entirely) by the need to pivot to other activities. Hopefully research in this area can help mitigate such damage, now and in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT