Awaken Sleeping Giants
Tell me if this sounds familiar to you:
You have a lightbulb moment.
A great idea you’ve never seen or heard before. It seems like it could really move things in an amazing new direction. You’re excited. No, SUPER excited. You deluge your friends and family with all the amazing, awesome outcomes your idea could have.
Once that first flush of excitement passes and the adrenaline from having had a genius moment settles you maybe start to look around for useful info on parts of your idea outside your knowledge base. And that’s when it happens. You come across a paper, a talk, a website, a colleague in conversation, where they discuss something painfully close to your supposedly “novel” idea.
The idea’s already been done.
To add salt in the wound, as you dig more you find out that “the idea”, what you thought was “your idea”, was tested out by some genius years ago. And they’ve already written about it, or tried it out, and moved on.
*sound of your ego and hope deflating here*
In my case, the “offending paper” was written before I was even born. That’s four decades old! I never even stood a chance of getting the first idea on that table.
So what does any of this have to do with old papers that have low citation rates? In other words, ideas that have been out there for a while, but nobody seems to care or talk about?
Deciding if the Old Paper in Your Reading Pile Should Still Be There
Well, as a matter of fact, the paper in my example was exactly that kind of paper—it had vanished into history like an unliked and unshared tweet or Facebook post.
But if you read my Research Spotlight summary (link at the end of this post) on a Nature paper about “Team Size and ‘Disruptive’ Science” you would have learned that researchers recently discovered a link between teams that publish more “disruptive” scientific papers, patents, or computer code and the research papers they cite: Teams proposing new ideas more often cited old unpopular papers. By unpopular I mean those old papers weren’t cited very often, ever.
It turns out that the paper that proposed the same idea I had was an old paper (well, older than I am) and nobody seemed to cite it. I had a good handle on just how unpopular it was because it was written by a European physicist in my own exact research field, it was published in a respectable journal, the physicist gave talks about it… And yet I’d literally never heard of him, his work, or his contribution to this idea.
Before I read the Nature paper I mentioned before on teams and disruptive science, I assumed that this paper I found and its lack of fanfare was a bad omen: “That means his/my idea must be a bad one.” I had a little pity party for myself and then I tucked the PDF and my notes into a file on my laptop only to review on rare and sentimental occasions.
But in light of reading the Nature paper, I’ve completely re-evaluated my attitude and thoughts toward both the idea and my predecessor’s paper. Instead of setting it aside, I need to re-evaluate what low citations means in this case.
And as I thought about it more and included my own experiences in publishing papers, I realized that low citation rates could have at least three meanings for a paper. I nickname these “the niche”, “the bad”, and “the visionary.”
The Niche Paper
For niche papers the low citation rate reflects the fact that no one really cares about the paper’s content.
There might be a few reasons for this. One reason reflects the content itself. It could just be an overly specific topic (like the singing habits of mice…don’t look shocked, mice do actually “sing”), or a topic that it’s nearly impossible to research because the tools and situations don’t exist yet (like extra-dimensional theories of how neutrino particles get their mass).
The other reason reflects a failure of communication. Maybe the authors used completely different technical jargon or math notation than anybody else has in published work. So even if we try hard, the rest of us just might not know what the heck they’re talking about.
But there’s a third possible reason suggested by reading a paper in Technological Forecasting & Social Change, which is the focus of this week’s Research Spotlight summary (link at the end of this post). Maybe it’s an emerging field, working right at the edge of known knowledge. As a result, it’s living in a sweet, but difficult, spot: at discovery’s edge. At this point in history, it falls into a niche because both of the two above reasons will trip up the paper: (1) no one will care about it because it’s not “a thing” or “trending” yet; and (2) no one will understand what it’s talking about because the focus of study is so new or under-researched that many ideas, concepts and words will have to be invented to talk about it.
And by the way, don’t assume that “emerging” just applies to stuff in the last 5 years. Sometimes emerging science takes decades to incubate, with just a few researchers keeping the embers alive, before it really takes off and becomes a new field of study in its own right.
Of course only the first kind of niche paper (the too specific) and the third kind (the emerging field) are potentially useful for breakthrough science, innovations, or inventions. The second kind (the Greek-speak) just needs a good re-write.
The Bad Paper
For bad papers the low citation rate reflects the fact that the work it describes just wasn’t that good.
There are lots and lots of reasons, big and small, why a paper might be bad. You could write volumes about this topic and, unfortunately, find lots of real examples to illustrate what you mean. In fact, right now I bet you can picture an example you thought was junk work and that you still wonder to yourself, “How did that get (published/funded/awarded/bought/greenlit)?”
I have no desire to make this post a laundry list of complaints against certain papers I’ve seen (I have no patience with pessimism or destructive criticism). The point here at The Insightful Scientist is to make progress toward scientific discovery and insight by finding fresh, valuable ways to move forward. Not wallow and howl at the bad stuff people sometimes produce.
So let me stick to what you need to do here: recognize when a paper is “bad” so you can move on from it quickly.
Right now, I’ll just point out two reasons that are big red flags that you should avoid using a paper at all, even to inform your own thinking, let alone to cite in one of your own writings.
First, if a paper uses inconsistent logic to either (1) justify its own findings or (2) compare itself to the works of others then you should consider it a “bad” paper and avoid it. You don’t want that bad mental habit to rub off on you or to have your credibility tainted by association (you’ll need that credibility later on when you want to encourage a broader community to engage with your ideas).
Second, if a paper does not give sufficient information to evaluate its methods or conclusions then you should consider it a “bad paper” and leave it out of your information pile. Again, it’s a bad habit, not laying out fully and clearly in writing what makes your work tick. So do yourself a favor and find a better paper. [The exception here is in sharing information about a patent or potentially patentable invention, where sharing too much detail could lead to problems in market competition. But the answer is simple: if you publish you have an obligation to share. The purpose of making something public by writing about it is to expand the public knowledge domain. If you don’t want to share, don’t publish.]
What I like about using these two red flags, to seek and ignore bad papers that have wandered into your information orbit, is that you can check for them even if the paper is well outside your area of expertise.
And if a radical breakthrough is your goal, you should be reading outside your expertise.
I’ve been reading in sociology, biochemistry, and library sciences to try and answer a neutrino physics question (those other fields help improve my skill set ,which makes me more adept at tackling my own field). Research suggests that this kind of intentional, broad information gathering can trigger radical insight.
Do what it takes to get the job done. Read widely, and filter out bad papers as you find them.
The Visionary Paper
For visionary papers the low citation rate reflects the fact that the ideas presented are too far ahead of their time for others to recognize or act on yet.
I know, I know. All you futurists, innovators, scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs out there (myself included) are drooling over this category.
Visionary.
The word just smells of greatness, and we all want to make a contribution that will make it into this category. So it’s only natural to get a little over-excited and want to label a paper related to your own “big dream” science or innovation as “visionary”. It gives us a feel-good moment and a sense of fate, an image of what our own future might look like.
But if you remember my story from the beginning of this post, that kind of warm-and-fuzzy meets adrenaline-pumping moment is what got us into this awkward mess, sorting papers into categories, in the first place. So here we are trying to be mature about this low citation paper and figure out what it means that someone else already came up with it, but no one paid attention.
On The Insightful Scientist I have made it my mission to learn how to be a pro at scientific discovery and share that with others. So let’s get objective. How can we tell if the ideas are ahead of their time?
I’ll assume that the paper has avoided any of the red flags that would make it a bad paper to rely on. (If you’re avoiding that evaluation because you’re afraid to see that paper not make the cut, have courage and be decisive. If the paper is “bad,” it’s bad for your long-term discovery goals.)
As you evaluate the paper, remember that you’re at an advantage because you’re a “future human” 5, 10, 20, 40, even 100 years after the paper was written. You know how some aspects of the “story” (i.e., the science) actually turned out and you can use that to help you evaluate.
Did this old paper have the right mindset—is it logically consistent, does it emphasize objectivity and evidence, and does it share information willingly? Did other ideas presented in the paper turn out to be true or stand the test of time? Did the paper get those ideas right, even though they were based on some false assumptions? Are those false assumptions of the “past humans” who wrote the paper mostly a result of not having access to the data, technology, populations, or even big pots of money like we future humans have now?
What you’re really trying to figure out is if the authors had good research instincts (due to experience, mindset, or both), even in the face of limited resources. If they did, then it’s possible they had honed their visionary skills about the topic and you might be looking at a visionary paper. It may have provided a past blueprint for a good idea that the future can now act on. If you want some examples of papers in this category, check out the link toward the end of this post.
And if your final decision is that the low citation paper you’ve got is visionary…build on it!
Learning to Sort Papers Like a Pro
If you remember, at the beginning of this post, I said this whole stream of thought came about because I had a low citation paper sitting in a neglected folder. I’d originally, purely based on citation rate, dismissed it as “bad”. But upon re-evaluating it I’ve decided it is somewhere between niche and visionary. I’m still working out which category I think it fits in best.
But the important point is that I’ve re-engaged with the paper and I’m wrestling with the science, ideas, and methods it presents in a much more thoughtful way. I’m not falling in love with it (like a novice might) and I’m not dismissing it out of hand either (like an old-hand might). I’m handling it like a pro who knows that when it comes to pursuing scientific discovery with deliberate skill, learning to distinguish between the niche, the bad, and the visionary is part of your job description.
Mantra of the Week
On a final note, before I sum this post up in a short bullet list, let me say this:
If you’ve read some of my past posts from 2018, especially the old versions, then you know I sometimes like to end with an artsy, one sentence tagline, and I use the post feature photo to illustrate it.
These one-liners are what I memorize to use as mantras when I start to get off-track during a task that’s supposed to help me innovate, invent, or discover.
This week’s one-liner is:
Awaken sleeping giants.
If you want to change the knowledge landscape then sometimes you have to dig into the past to find ideas that are sleeping giants. Once awakened, the rumble and weight of their presence will cause heaven and earth to stand-up and take notice. And as physicist Isaac Newton once supposedly said, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Final Thoughts
So let’s recap the ideas and examples I’ve talked about in this post:
- I suggested a way to sort old unpopular papers in your information pile into three categories: the niche, the bad, and the visionary.
- I pointed out why you should throw out papers falling into the bad category and consider building on papers in the niche and visionary categories.
- I talked about how each of these categories of papers fit into the big picture of the pursuit of scientific discovery.
Do you have your own sorting and sifting criteria for papers? You can share your thoughts by posting a comment below.
Interesting Stuff Related to This Post
- Web Article – Carl Zimmer, “These Mice Sing to One Another — Politely,” The New York Times, February 28, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/28/science/mice-singing-language-brain.html.
- Web Article – “Like Sleeping Beauty, some research lies dormant for decades, study finds”, Phys.org website, May 25, 2015, https://phys.org/news/2015-05-beauty-lies-dormant-decades.html.
Related Content on The Insightful Scientist
Blog Posts:
Research Spotlight Summaries:
How-To Articles:
- —
How to cite this post in a reference list:
Bernadette K. Cogswell, “Low Citation Papers: The Niche, the Bad, and the Visionary”, The Insightful Scientist Blog, March 15, 2019, https://insightfulscientist.com/blog/2019/awaken-sleeping-giants.
[Page Feature Photo: Standing figure and reclining Buddha at the Gal Vihara site in Sri Lanka. Photo by Eddy Billard on Unsplash.]