“In many academic fields, the number of papers published each year has increased significantly over time. Policy measures aim to increase the quantity of scientists, research funding, and scientific output, which is measured by the number of papers produced. These quantitative metrics determine the career trajectories of scholars and evaluations of academic departments, institutions, and nations. Whether and how these increases in the numbers of scientists and papers translate into advances in knowledge is unclear, however. Here, we first lay out a theoretical argument for why too many papers published each year in a field can lead to stagnation rather than advance. The deluge of new papers may deprive reviewers and readers the cognitive slack required to fully recognize and understand novel ideas. Competition among many new ideas may prevent the gradual accumulation of focused attention on a promising new idea. Then, we show data supporting the predictions of this theory. When the number of papers published per year in a scientific field grows large, citations flow disproportionately to already well-cited papers; the list of most-cited papers ossifies; new papers are unlikely to ever become highly cited, and when they do, it is not through a gradual, cumulative process of attention gathering; and newly published papers become unlikely to disrupt existing work. These findings suggest that the progress of large scientific fields may be slowed, trapped in existing canon. Policy measures shifting how scientific work is produced, disseminated, consumed, and rewarded may be called for to push fields into new, more fertile areas of study.Johan S. G. Chu and James A. Evans, “Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Oct 2021, 118 (41) e2021636118; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2021636118
Too much information leads to the inability to determine what is important and what is not important. This slows the rate of change and supports the status quo.
Next time someone tells you that the Internet is a liberating force providing people with more information than they have ever had before, you can point to Sturgeon’s Law. If 90% of everything is crap, increasing your volume, indiscriminately, leads to a clogged filter — less knowledge and wisdom, not more, on a volume basis. It is only a benefit when we can filter the 10% from the 90% efficiently, which is a skill few, if any, of us have and probably implies lower volume or some sort of pre-filter.