Author | Wang Yongang
Editor | Dong Zibo
In people’s general cognition, scientific research papers and patents are important factors to promote the development of the scientific and technological field, and are also an important part of the combination of industry, education and research.
However, in the latest article released by Nature at the beginning of the year, it showed a pessimistic attitude towards the development status of scientific research papers. Nature believes that the number of scientific research papers has surged in recent years, but there has been no disruptive innovation.
Paper address: https://ift.tt/mlEoh9w
The article analyzed 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents in six large databases. Starting from different research fields, the researchers analyzed the change trend of the CD index of scientific and technological achievements from 1945 to 2010, in order to explore the overall changes in the subversive aspects of research results.
Disruptive research refers to scientific research results that overturn the conclusions of previous research. When subsequent research cites subversive research, it generally does not cite its predecessor research. The CD Index uses this difference in citation patterns to measure the “disruption” of a study.
It is mentioned in the article that the CD index declined relatively quickly in the second half of the last century, and stabilized after 2000 . The overall decline in the average CD index reflects the fact that papers and patents are more focused on deepening previous research than on breaking new ground. The researchers argue that the absence of such disruptive advances reflects a fundamental shift in the nature of technological development.
Previously, a popular view held that the decline in the proportion of subversive research was due to the fact that in the process of technological development, most of the research that is easy to be discovered and the achievements that are easy to complete have been completed by the predecessors, which is the so-called “low-handed research”. fruit” theory. There is another point of view that the start and prosperity of various research fields come first and then later.
The conclusions drawn in this paper summarize the lack of disruptive achievements into three reasons: the development of science and technology has entered a plateau period; the problem of scientific research model and technology evaluation; the problem of the professional environment of scientists.
1
Technological development has entered a plateau
It is mentioned in the article that different stages of technological development have brought about a decline in the level of disruptive innovation in papers, that is, since scientists represented by Einstein established the paradigm of modern physics in the early 20th century, research paradigms in various disciplines have gradually been established and adopted. Fixed, follow-on research steps into the era of “normal science” advancing along established paradigms.
Scientific development often follows such laws. At the beginning of the technological revolution, a large number of subversive research appeared. After the scientific and technological revolution has passed, the development of science and technology has entered the era of in-depth research that implements the paradigm.
There is a pot of warm water in the academic circle, and the frog in the pot is slowly cooking. In the final analysis, the KPIs of academics are nothing but papers and patents. Excessive focus on KPI will inevitably lead to out-of-shape actions.
A practitioner in the field of optics told Leifeng.com that now, for a prism lens, if a parameter is changed slightly, as long as the lens can image, it is a new patent and one more paper can be written.
“As long as the time is long enough for a scholar, it is very possible to memorize dozens or even hundreds of patents, but it is difficult to say how strong their actual problem-solving ability is.” The practitioner said.
Dai Ruoli, the CTO of Noitom, who studied Chinese language in Hong Kong and became a postdoctoral fellow, gave up the opportunity in the ivory tower and resolutely came out to start a business and endured the baptism of the market. When asked, he explained why he decided to start a business:
“If human knowledge is a bag, then there are too many scholars who pick up firewood in the bag; but there are too few people who actually take things out of the bag and make products that the market and society need.”
When the dream of industry-university-research comes into reality, practitioners will always feel powerless. Cutting-edge technology can be implemented more quickly and on a large scale in the industry, which is bound to attract more talents. However, how to industrialize scientific and technological achievements and shorten the gap between academic research institutions and enterprise applications has always been a problem that plagues the industry.
2
Scientific Research Models and Science and Technology Evaluation Problems
The article also mentioned that the current scientific research model, especially the academic publishing model and its supporting technology evaluation system, have constrained the occurrence of disruptive research.
The article criticizes some behaviors in the academic world, such as forcibly splitting a research article into multiple papers in order to increase the number of academic publications, which the researchers believe will turn research into “a pool of stagnant water.”
More paper publications can bring more benefits to scientific research institutions , so the entire academic community pursues the number of papers, but this will undoubtedly have a negative impact on research.
In addition, the article also pointed out that the existing peer review system, which is dominated by single and double blind, is not conducive to the publication of subversive research.
Similar problems exist in industry. Most technology companies attach great importance to the investment in scientific research funds, and use this to flaunt their own strength. Among them, a large amount of research and development costs were used to apply for patents. Although patents are one of the moats of enterprises at the scientific research level, there are many ways to do it as mentioned above, which will greatly reduce the gold content of patents. After squeezing out the water, companies are still doing homogeneous competition.
3
Scientists’ Professional Environment Issues
The researchers believe that outstanding scientists who make subversive research and even promote technological change are often less bound by careers and interests.
Scientists who do disruptive research tend to have more autonomy. However, the current scientific research system has been highly mature and “industrialized”, scientists have fallen into a busy “career trap”, and are exhausted on the so-called career development path. Instead, the free time necessary for major technological innovations is missing.
The researchers suggest that universities and other scientific research institutions should place more emphasis on “quality” rather than “quantity” in the evaluation of papers; scientists should receive more generous funding and vacation arrangements; funds should support longer-term, higher-risk, and more personal Funded projects, but completely restricted to specific research project funding.
When scientists fall into the predicament of shortage of time and energy, it will also affect the implementation of scientific achievements in the industry.
Most academics are not motivated enough to consider industrial issues outside of scientific research tasks. An industry practitioner told Leifeng.com that the root of the problem is that people who do scientific research often have little enthusiasm for the industry: “5,000 lines of code in a paper can solve an algorithm problem. But if it is instrumentalized in the industry, it may That’s 50,000 lines of code.” This involves a lot of trial and error, and many scholars are reluctant to take this road.
4
epilogue
This paper reflects the plight of scientific research papers, but since the research object selected by the article only focuses on academic publications, it is not enough to reflect the whole picture of the scientific research field. In addition, the data in this article are concentrated from 1945 to 2010, which has time limitations and cannot evaluate the development process of scientific research on a historical scale. Although the effectiveness of the CD index research method used in this paper has been confirmed in many studies, it is still a relatively new evaluation index after all. In order to further implement its academic value, more abundant research is needed on it.
The academic circle has a self-contained “set of gameplay”, and articles will be published on the top, and it is not without shortcuts. A practitioner who used to be in the academic circle told Leifeng.com that in addition to writing papers, they spent a lot of time and energy, holding receptions and socializing, just to publish papers in academic journals.
“There are so many people submitting papers every year. When everyone’s quality is similar, the judges are often willing to favor people they already know. This is also human nature.” This practitioner said.
In addition, industry-university-research research always looks beautiful, but it is always in trouble. When college teachers discuss cooperation with enterprises, they will write various “self-protection” clauses on technology transfer. These terms, sometimes stated, are only guaranteed to be repeated under specific conditions in the laboratory, whether it can be enlarged to make a product, and whether the product can be sold at a large scale. University teachers and enterprises will not share the risk equally.
In recent years, both academia and the industry have seen the plight of scientific research results. It is not a day’s work for disruptive innovative scientific research results to appear. Utilitarian scientific research can create certain value, but it is not a long-term solution after all. The academia and industry must truly uphold long-termism and maintain a sense of awe in the field of scientific research, so that the field of scientific research can return to the golden age and more disruptive innovations emerge.
For more content , click below to follow:
Without the authorization of “AI Technology Review”, reprinting on web pages, forums, and communities in any way is strictly prohibited!
Please leave a message in the background of “AI Technology Review” to obtain authorization before reprinting from the official account. When reprinting, you must indicate the source and insert the business card of this official account.
Leifeng.com
This article is transferred from: https://www.leiphone.com/category/academic/fiebuIoikxxtUHp6.html
This site is only for collection, and the copyright belongs to the original author.