How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haubrock Phillip J, Kouba Antonín, Soto Ismael, Abreo Neil Angelo S, Vilizzi Lorenzo, Błońska Dagmara, Tarkan Ali Serhan, De Santis Vanessa, Sousa Ronaldo, Nogueira António Barbosa, Heeren Senne, Nogueira Joana Garrido, Cano-Barbacil Carlos, Cremella Bruno, Strubbe Diederik, Silva Janine Pereira da, Poloni Riccardo, Deschepper Pablo, Thoré Eli S J, Misteli Benjamin, Sun Jingrui, Panisi Martina, Dudgeon David, Stamatiadou Valentini, Galib Shams M, Maes Chelly, Baso Nompumelelo C, Beukema Wouter, Števove Barbora, Záhorská Eva, Kurtul Irmak, Kaur Davinder, Huber Augusto Frederico, Halabowski Dariusz, de Assis Guilherme Padilha Janeide, Balzani Paride, Kaya Cüneyt, Bayçelebi Esra, Mugnai Michele, Ahmed Danish A, Saç Gülşah, Aksu Sadi, Kaya Burak Malik, Ciftcioglu Mulkibar, Jiang Xiaoming, Rodríguez-Rey Marta, Martín-Forés Irene, Leles Suzana Gonçalves, Pârvulescu Lucian, Pergl Jan, Rossetto Federica, Wei Hui, Kirichenko Natalia I, Briski Elizabeta, Gallitelli Luca, Britton J Robert, Everts Teun
Аннотация
We argue that contemporary scientific systems progressively constrain high-risk and conceptually innovative research while being increasingly structured around short funding cycles, productivity-based evaluation criteria and risk-averse frameworks that favour predictable and non-transformative research outputs. Drawing on recent empirical literature, we show how such systems can place disproportionate pressure on early-career researchers by incentivizing safe, tractable and easily evaluated outputs. Structural academic mechanisms such as peer review and funding, escalating publication costs and institutional inequalities interact with precarious employment and hierarchical dependencies. In this environment, we contend that strategic conformity becomes a rational career path. This risks suppressing creativity and critical thinking precisely at the stage when scientific independence could otherwise emerge. Consequently, the probability of substantive contributions by early-career researchers is declining, while talent may increasingly abandon academia or cluster within a limited number of well-resourced institutions and national systems. By adopting a systems-level perspective, we argue that scientific creativity is not merely an individual trait but an emerging property of a supportive academic landscape and that maintaining or restoring it may require substantial structural reforms. These include promoting stable research pathways, decentralized decision-making and evaluation frameworks that better recognize collaboration, originality, persistence and nonlinear career trajectories. Without systemic change, we risk stifling the potential of early-career researchers to go beyond the confines of existing methods and approaches and deliver transformative advances. This would limit their capacity to meaningfully change our understanding of the world or benefit society, with impacts that fall short of their potential.