Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention

Abstract Adding to the literature on the recognition and spread of ideas, and alongside the bias against novelty view documented in prior research, we introduce the perspective that articles compete for the attention of researchers who might build upon them. We investigate this effect by analyzing more than 5.3 million research publications from 1970 to 1999 in the life sciences. In support of our competition for attention perspective, we show that articles covering rarely addressed topics tend to receive more citations and have a higher chance of being breakthrough papers as compared to articles on more popular topics. We also explore conditions under which these effects might vary by using decade subsamples, home- versus foreign-field forward citations, as well as short-, medium- and long-term time windows. Finally, we also find evidence consistent with the previously documented bias against novelty and show that both mechanisms can work simultaneously.

[1]  Wolfgang Stroebe,et al.  The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: choosing between creativity and impact. , 2010, British journal of psychology.

[2]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[3]  Sen Chai,et al.  Near Misses in the Breakthrough Discovery Process , 2017, Organ. Sci..

[4]  Amit Nigam,et al.  Event Attention, Environmental Sensemaking, and Change in Institutional Logics: An Inductive Analysis of the Effects of Public Attention to Clinton's Health Care Reform Initiative , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[5]  Benjamin F. Jones.  The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2005 .

[6]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Lone Inventors as Source of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality? , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[7]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[8]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[9]  Sam Arts,et al.  Paradise of Novelty - Or Loss of Human Capital? Exploring New Fields and Inventive Output , 2018, Organ. Sci..

[10]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[11]  A. Fire,et al.  Potent and specific genetic interference by double-stranded RNA in Caenorhabditis elegans , 1998, Nature.

[12]  A. Zaheer,et al.  Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities , 1999 .

[13]  M. Haas,et al.  Information, Attention, and Decision Making , 2015 .

[14]  B. Mcclintock,et al.  The Stability of Broken Ends of Chromosomes in Zea Mays. , 1941, Genetics.

[15]  William Ocasio,et al.  Attention to Attention , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[16]  Andrew B. Hargadon,et al.  Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. , 1997 .

[17]  A. Treisman.  Strategies and models of selective attention. , 1969, Psychological review.

[18]  Scott Stern,et al.  Climbing Atop the Shoulders of Giants: The Impact of Institutions on Cumulative Research , 2006, American Economic Review.

[19]  Shimul Melwani,et al.  The Bias Against Creativity , 2012, Psychological science.

[20]  B. Mcclintock.  The origin and behavior of mutable loci in maize , 1950, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

[22]  J. March,et al.  Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking , 1987 .

[23]  D. Simonton,et al.  Age and Creative Productivity: Nonlinear Estimation of an Information-Processing Model , 1989, International journal of aging & human development.

[24]  Pierre Azoulay,et al.  Are recombinant scientific articles more impactful , 2012 .

[25]  Hila Lifshitz-Assaf,et al.  Dismantling Knowledge Boundaries at NASA: From Problem Solvers to Solution Seekers , 2016 .

[26]  R. Merton.  Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. , 1957 .

[27]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea , 2009, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Howard Margolis,et al.  Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern Scientific Beliefs , 1995 .

[29]  J. A. Berson,et al.  Discoveries missed, discoveries made: creativity, influence, and fame in chemistry , 1992 .

[30]  Ganesh Iyer,et al.  Competing for Attention in Social Communication Markets , 2015 .

[31]  W. Ocasio.  TOWARDS AN ATTENTION-BASED VIEW OF THE FIRM , 1997 .

[32]  D. Broadbent.  CHAPTER 5 – THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON BEHAVIOUR , 1958 .

[33]  J Driver,et al.  A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. , 2001, British journal of psychology.

[34]  Reinhilde Veugelers,et al.  Measuring Technological Novelty with Patent-Based Indicators , 2015 .

[35]  Karim R. Lakhani,et al.  Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science , 2016, Manag. Sci..

[36]  Jian Wang,et al.  Bias Against Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators , 2015 .

[37]  Andrey Rzhetsky,et al.  Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies , 2013, ArXiv.

[38]  Neil R. Smalheiser,et al.  Author name disambiguation in MEDLINE , 2009, TKDD.

[39]  P. Waterhouse,et al.  Virus resistance and gene silencing in plants can be induced by simultaneous expression of sense and antisense RNA. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[40]  Jackie Rees Ulmer,et al.  Competing for Attention: An Empirical Study of Online Reviewers' Strategic Behavior , 2015, MIS Q..

[41]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[42]  S. Zahra,et al.  Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization , 2002 .

[43]  S. Shane,et al.  Determinants of invention commercialization: an empirical examination of academically sourced inventions , 2007 .

[44]  H. Pashler.  The Psychology of Attention , 1997 .

[45]  G. Carroll,et al.  Dynamics of Organizational Populations: Density, Legitimation, and Competition.By Michael T. Hannan and Glenn R. Carroll. Oxford University Press, 1992. 286 pp. $29.95 , 1992 .

[46]  ANTHONY F. J. VAN RAAN,et al.  Sleeping Beauties in science , 2004, Scientometrics.

[47]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  Competing for Attention in Knowledge Markets: Electronic Document Dissemination in a Management Consulting Company , 2001 .

[48]  L. Fleming,et al.  Collaborative Brokerage, Generative Creativity, and Creative Success , 2007 .

[49]  D. Simonton.  Origins of genius : Darwinian perspectives on creativity , 1999 .

[50]  W. James,et al.  The Principles of Psychology. , 1983 .

[51]  A. Hoffman,et al.  Not All Events are Attended Equally: Toward a Middle-Range Theory of Industry Attention to External Events , 2001 .

[52]  N. Rosenberg.  Science, Invention and Economic Growth , 1974 .

[53]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[54]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[55]  R. Daft,et al.  Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretation Systems , 1984 .

[56]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[57]  H. Simon,et al.  Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. , 1959 .

[58]  Nicola Gennaioli,et al.  Competition for Attention , 2013 .