Beyond surface correlations: Reference behavior mediates the disruptiveness-citation relationship
Abstract
Purpose
This study examines why papers with high CD indices (measuring research disruptiveness) increasingly show reduced citation impact and investigates whether this represents genuine impact reduction or methodological artifacts.
Design/methodology/approach
We analyzed 29 million papers (1950-2016) using Poisson regression to examine relationships between the CD index and citation count, with controls for fields, team size, and reference count.
Findings
Papers with high CD indices showed reduced citation impact over time. However, when controlling for increasing reference counts in papers, this relationship reversed, revealing a positive association. Papers with more references exhibit lower CD indices owing to the index’s sensitivity to the reference count, while achieving higher citation counts. Alternative innovation metrics consistently show positive correlations with citation impact.
Research limitations
The approach may not adequately capture the reduced citation impact of highly disruptive papers with fewer references. The analysis is limited to journal articles and shows correlation rather than causality.
Practical implications
The apparent undervaluation of disruptive research stems from methodological artifacts in the CD index calculation driven by evolving reference patterns. Researchers should control for the reference count when using this metric.
Originality/value
This study reveals that bias against disruptive research is specific to the CD index’s calculation methodology, identifying reference behavior as the key factor affecting the relationship between disruption metrics and citation impact.
© 2025 Alex J. Yang, Fanming Wang, Yujie Shi, Yiqin Zhang, Hao Wang, Sanhong Deng, published by Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Library
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.