New study: Success can come at any age

What does age have to do with cre­ative break­throughs in sci­ence? Not much, according to new research led by North­eastern net­work sci­en­tist Albert-László Barabási. Rather, it is pro­duc­tivity and the will to keep trying that cor­re­sponds with great dis­cov­eries, whether the sci­en­tist is 20, 40, or even 70.

The research, pub­lished on Thursday in the journal Sci­ence, found that the timing of pro­ducing high-impact papers is com­pletely random, it means that sci­en­tists can achieve suc­cess at any point in their careers—and achieve it repeatedly—as long as they keep trying.

The find­ings fly in the face of con­ven­tional wisdom, which typ­i­cally holds that major con­tri­bu­tions diminish with age.

What stays stable throughout a scientist’s career, how­ever, is the mag­ni­tude of his or her impact, that is, how much influ­ence he or she has on sci­ence at large.

Sci­ence has an excep­tional set of tools and rep­u­ta­tion for pre­dicting nat­ural phe­nomena,” says Barabasi, Robert Gray Dodge Pro­fessor and Uni­ver­sity Dis­tin­guished Pro­fessor of Physics. “When we turn these tools to sci­en­tific careers, we observe the same degree of pre­dictability: an ability to quan­tify the evo­lu­tion of sci­en­tific careers. Under­standing the laws and the pat­terns that govern our careers could sig­nif­i­cantly enhance sci­en­tific output. It may also help iden­tify and nur­ture indi­vid­uals who are poised to make big dis­cov­eries and encourage the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity to offer them the resources and oppor­tu­nity to do so.”

Dis­en­tan­gling luck, pro­duc­tivity, impact

For their study, the researchers inspected the pub­li­ca­tions of more than 10,000 sci­en­tists in seven dif­ferent disciplines—from physics to chem­istry, eco­nomics to cog­ni­tive science—whose careers spanned at least 20 years. To quan­ti­ta­tively deter­mine what drove suc­cess, they set out to dis­en­tangle three con­tributing vari­ables: luck, pro­duc­tivity, and mag­ni­tude of sus­tain­able impact.

Luck, of course, came from per­sis­tence: trying again and again. “Think of buying lot­tery tickets or rolling a die,” says first author Roberta Sinatra, vis­iting research assis­tant pro­fessor at North­eastern and assis­tant pro­fessor at Cen­tral Euro­pean Uni­ver­sity, in Budapest. “The more times you try, the better your chances.”

Pro­duc­tivity was based on how many papers each sci­en­tist had pub­lished. Sus­tain­able impact, which the researchers called Q, reflected the number of times each paper had been cited in another study. In aca­d­emic research, the more often a paper is cited, the greater its per­ceived impact. Hence sci­en­tists with a high Q had not only been pro­duc­tive throughout their careers but also had pub­lished papers that had been cited many times. Con­versely, sci­en­tists with a low Q, while per­haps pro­duc­tive, had papers that had been cited infrequently.

The Q factor cap­tures a com­bi­na­tion of ability, edu­ca­tion, and knowl­edge,” says Barabasi, who directs Northeastern’s Center for Com­plex Net­work Research. “That is, how good is a sci­en­tist at picking an idea and turning it into a discovery.”

An aston­ishing finding

The researchers arranged every paper the sci­en­tists had pub­lished in chrono­log­ical order and cal­cu­lated at what point in each scientist’s career the highest-impact paper had appeared.

We were aston­ished at what we found,” says Sinatra. The biggest break­through was just as likely to be a scientist’s first paper as his or her last one, or any­where in between.

That’s good news for sci­ence. “What mat­ters is not the timing of dis­cov­eries that could affect future gen­er­a­tions but that they hap­pened,” says Barabasi. “Under­standing that good sci­en­tists, if they have the resources to stay pro­duc­tive, could gen­erate future big dis­cov­eries, inde­pen­dent of age, is essen­tial for us to move for­ward in thinking about how to boost sci­ence.” Kim Albrecht, visu­al­iza­tion researcher at North­eastern, cre­ated an exten­sive data visu­al­iza­tion of the full paper.

What was not random was the impact of the sci­en­tists’ bodies of work, that is, the con­sis­tency of how often their papers were cited by others. “A high Q com­bined with con­tinued efforts pro­vide a fore­cast of what’s to come,” says Sinatra. “We cannot pre­dict when a big hit will come, but by exam­ining Q—a stable factor—we can pre­dict that one will likely come in the future.”

The journal Nature cre­ated a video cap­turing the essence of the research.

The researchers are careful to point out that they are mea­suring suc­cess, not per­for­mance. “This is not a mea­sure of the quality of a sci­en­tist,” says Sinatra. “It is a math­e­mat­ical parameter—a mea­sure of how the sci­en­tific com­mu­nity per­ceives an individual’s output.” That para­meter, she explains, may reflect many things in addi­tion to the research itself, for example, the insti­tu­tions where the sci­en­tist worked and studied, his or her loca­tion, and even gender.

With this research we have sep­a­rated luck and sus­tain­able impact,” she says. “Now we need to better under­stand what causes Q so we can uncover any biases or inequal­i­ties in how sci­en­tists’ work is perceived.” This is a press release from Northeastern University.

Substack subscription form sign up
The material in this press release comes from the originating research organization. Content may be edited for style and length. Want more? Sign up for our daily email.

1 thought on “New study: Success can come at any age”

  1. “Think of buying lot­tery tickets or rolling a die,” says first author Roberta Sinatra, vis­iting research assis­tant pro­fessor at North­eastern and assis­tant pro­fessor at Cen­tral Euro­pean Uni­ver­sity, in Budapest. “The more times you try, the better your chances.”

    Isn’t this an oddly unscientific comment?

Comments are closed.