Abstract In exploring the intersection of scholarly research with technological advancement and societal impact, our analysis delves into nearly 40 million research papers spanning from 1950 to 2020 across all fields of study in science. Our scrutiny reveals an intriguing phenomenon: papers characterized by a higher CD index, often considered transformative, paradoxically exhibit a diminished propensity to influence technological and societal domains. This observation suggests a latent bias against the CD index, prompting a deeper inquiry into its implications. To unravel this trend, we introduce the concept of “disruptive citation,” a nuanced metric gauging the absolute disruptive impact of papers. Notably, papers drawing higher disruptive citations exhibit a significantly higher probability to influence both technological and societal spheres. Upon examining the heterogeneity across years and fields, we identify a bias against the CD index predominantly in the last two decades and within STEM fields. However, the positive effects of disruptive impact remain consistent across all years and fields. Our findings remain robust even when employing alternative measures of disruptive impact and controlling for total citations. By shedding light on these dynamics, our study seeks to enrich discussions regarding the recognition and role of disruptive scientific endeavors in shaping our world.

Abstract The growing complexity of modern scientific challenges demands research teams that integrate diverse perspectives, yet the role of academic status diversity—variation in team members' scholarly achievements—remains insufficiently understood. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the dynamics of academic diversity within research teams and its association with innovation, analyzing more than 17 million articles across 292 fields. We introduce new metrics—academic entropy, academic standard deviation, and academic disparity—to capture the heterogeneity of team members' academic backgrounds. Using a network null model to account for temporal and disciplinary differences, we uncover significant increases in academic diversity, particularly within STEM fields and developed regions, where diversity levels are notably overrepresented. While we find a positive correlation between academic diversity and interdisciplinarity, higher diversity is associated with lower levels of scientific disruption. Teams with greater academic diversity tend to be associated with consolidating existing knowledge rather than producing disruptive innovations that challenge prevailing frameworks. This trend is especially evident in larger teams, where diversity is linked to incremental progress rather than transformative breakthroughs. These findings underscore the need for a balanced approach to promoting diversity in relation to scientific advancement.