Publish or Perish: Selective Attrition as a Unifying Explanation for Patterns in Innovation over the Career

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Science
• Scientometrics
• Research Policy

Background:

• Understanding the scientific life-cycle productivity is crucial for research institutions and funding agencies.
• Previous studies have presented conflicting findings regarding the decline in research output and quality over a scientist's career.
• Selective attrition and the distinction between research quantity and quality have been confounding factors.

Purpose of the Study:

• To reconcile conflicting literature on scientists' life-cycle productivity.
• To investigate the relationship between career stage, research quantity, research quality, and author "ability".
• To provide evidence-based insights for federal research funding policies.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of 5.6 million biomedical science articles published over three decades.
• Controlling for selective attrition in author career paths.
• Distinguishing between measures of research quantity and research quality.

Main Results:

• Research quality declines monotonically throughout a scientist's career.
• This decline in quality is masked by higher-ability scientists having longer publishing careers.
• Early-career researchers, while potentially less "able" on average, may be in their most creative phase.

Conclusions:

• Career-long human capital accumulation patterns require careful consideration of both quantity and quality.
• Federal research policies, particularly those favoring early-career researchers, should be implemented with awareness of average "ability" levels.
• Balancing support for emerging talent with the recognition of experienced researchers' contributions is essential for scientific progress.