IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/20920.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas

Author

Listed:
  • Mikko Packalen
  • Jay Bhattacharya

Abstract

Older scientists are often seen as less open to new ideas than younger scientists. We put this assertion to an empirical test. Using a measure of new ideas derived from the text of nearly all biomedical scientific articles published since 1946, we compare the tendency of younger and older researchers to try out new ideas in their work. We find that papers published in biomedicine by younger researchers are more likely to build on new ideas. Collaboration with a more experienced researcher matters as well. Papers with a young first author and a more experienced last author are more likely to try out newer ideas than papers published by other team configurations. Given the crucial role that the trying out of new ideas plays in the advancement of science, our results buttress the importance of funding scientific work by young researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas," NBER Working Papers 20920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20920
    Note: AG EH PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20920.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vetle I. Torvik & Marc Weeber & Don R. Swanson & Neil R. Smalheiser, 2005. "A probabilistic similarity metric for Medline records: A model for author name disambiguation," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(2), pages 140-158, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikko Packalen, 2019. "Edge factors: scientific frontier positions of nations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(3), pages 787-808, March.
    2. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    3. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2017. "Neophilia ranking of scientific journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 110(1), pages 43-64, January.
    4. Joseph Staudt, 2020. "Mandating access: assessing the NIH’s public access policy," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 35(102), pages 269-304.
    5. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    6. Luo, Zhuoran & Lu, Wei & He, Jiangen & Wang, Yuqi, 2022. "Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    7. Irmen, Andreas & Litina, Anastasia, 2022. "Population Aging And Inventive Activity," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 1127-1161, July.
    8. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Cities and Ideas," NBER Working Papers 20921, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Wei Cheng & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2021. "Marginalized and Overlooked? Minoritized Groups and the Adoption of New Scientific Ideas," NBER Working Papers 29179, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2018. "Does the NIH Fund Edge Science?," NBER Working Papers 24860, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Zhiya Zuo & Kang Zhao, 2021. "Understanding and predicting future research impact at different career stages—A social network perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(4), pages 454-472, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Deyun Yin & Kazuyuki Motohashi & Jianwei Dang, 2020. "Large-scale name disambiguation of Chinese patent inventors (1985–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 765-790, February.
    2. Xuan Jiang & Wan-Ying Chang & Bruce A Weinberg, 2021. "Man versus machine? Self-reports versus algorithmic measurement of publications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-22, September.
    3. Daniele Rotolo & Loet Leydesdorff, 2014. "Matching MEDLINE/PubMed Data with Web of Science (WOS): A Routine in R language," SPRU Working Paper Series 2014-14, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Shubhanshu Mishra & Brent D Fegley & Jana Diesner & Vetle I Torvik, 2018. "Self-citation is the hallmark of productive authors, of any gender," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Catini, Roberto & Karamshuk, Dmytro & Penner, Orion & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2015. "Identifying geographic clusters: A network analytic approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1749-1762.
    6. IKEUCHI Kenta & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki & TAMURA Ryuichi & TSUKADA Naotoshi, 2017. "Measuring Science Intensity of Industry using Linked Dataset of Science, Technology and Industry," Discussion papers 17056, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    7. Jinseok Kim & Jason Owen-Smith, 2021. "ORCID-linked labeled data for evaluating author name disambiguation at scale," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(3), pages 2057-2083, March.
    8. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Fabio Pugini, 2008. "The measurement of Italian universities’ research productivity by a non parametric-bibliometric methodology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 76(2), pages 225-244, August.
    9. Lungeanu, Alina & Huang, Yun & Contractor, Noshir S., 2014. "Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 59-70.
    10. Michele Pezzoni & Francesco Lissoni & Gianluca Tarasconi, 2014. "How to kill inventors: testing the Massacrator© algorithm for inventor disambiguation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 477-504, October.
    11. Jian Wang & Kaspars Berzins & Diana Hicks & Julia Melkers & Fang Xiao & Diogo Pinheiro, 2012. "A boosted-trees method for name disambiguation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 93(2), pages 391-411, November.
    12. Ruxandra-Irina POPESCU & Răzvan-Andrei CORBOȘ & Ovidiu-Iulian BUNEA, 2023. "From Bytes To Insights Through A Bibliometric Journey Into Ai'S Influence On Public Services," APPLIED RESEARCH IN ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 4(3), pages 4-18, December.
    13. Jun-Ping Qiu & Ke Dong & Hou-Qiang Yu, 2014. "Comparative study on structure and correlation among author co-occurrence networks in bibliometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1345-1360, November.
    14. Freeman, Richard B. & Huang, Wei, 2014. "Collaborating With People Like Me: Ethnic Co-authorship within the US," IZA Discussion Papers 8432, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Li, Guan-Cheng & Lai, Ronald & D’Amour, Alexander & Doolin, David M. & Sun, Ye & Torvik, Vetle I. & Yu, Amy Z. & Fleming, Lee, 2014. "Disambiguation and co-authorship networks of the U.S. patent inventor database (1975–2010)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 941-955.
    16. Lane, Julia I. & Owen-Smith, Jason & Rosen, Rebecca F. & Weinberg, Bruce A., 2015. "New linked data on research investments: Scientific workforce, productivity, and public value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1659-1671.
    17. Huo, Dong & Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Gong, Han, 2019. "Team diversity as dissimilarity and variety in organizational innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1564-1572.
    18. Jan Schulz, 2016. "Using Monte Carlo simulations to assess the impact of author name disambiguation quality on different bibliometric analyses," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1283-1298, June.
    19. Cova, Tânia F.G.G. & Jarmelo, Susana & Formosinho, Sebastião J. & de Melo, J. Sérgio Seixas & Pais, Alberto A.C.C., 2015. "Unsupervised characterization of research institutions with task-force estimation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 59-68.
    20. Mark Huberty & Amma Serwaah & Georg Zachmann, 2014. "A flexible, scaleable approach to the international patent 'name game'," Bruegel Working Papers 850, Bruegel.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health
    • J11 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20920. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.