Has Scientific Talent Shifted from Depth to Breadth?Evidence across Papers, Knowledge Inputs, Careers, and Teams

Progress in artificial intelligence is widely assumed to scale with effort: more researchers, papers and investment should accelerate discovery. Theories of technological growth instead locate the difficulty of discovery in the space of ideas. Here we show that neither scale nor space is enough: breakthroughs depend on diverse attention, which collective concentration can deplete. Across 36 years of computer science, we analyze 7.2 million papers, 73,089 peer reviews and 3.7 million researchers and their topic shifts. The field expanded while its attention narrowed sharply after the Transformer. Over half of topic-shifting researchers moved into AI, especially mid-career ones, and reviewer confidence fell by a full point on a 5-point scale. Each successive breakthrough, from AlexNet to large language models, raised the field's carrying capacity for ideas but was followed by steeper exhaustion of those ideas. Bigger breakthroughs capture attention more completely, depleting the diversity their successors may draw upon. Structural biology shows the same cycle after cryo-EM and AlphaFold. Simulations show how well-intentioned and widely used policies such as reciprocal reviewing empower prolific authors and further narrow what the field accepts. We call for institutions that protect diverse attention in artificial intelligence rather than reward concentration on the winning paradigm.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

The era of Big Science has long been defined by increasingly large and specialized research teams pushing the frontiers of knowledge. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are beginning to reshape academic writing and scientific research, potentially disrupting the longstanding trend toward ever-larger teams and transforming other dimensions of research team structure. Drawing on 147,074 full-text publications from the PLoS family and the Nature portfolio since 2020, we examined whether and how AI-assisted writing influences team structure and team outcomes in science. Using multiple methods, including ordinary least square, quantile regression, Poisson regression, logistic regression and propensity score matching, we found that research teams using AI-assisted writing tend to be younger and smaller. Importantly, this shift toward more compact, junior-leaning teams does not come at the expense of scientific impact. On the contrary, we observed a higher probability of research teams that employed AI-assisted writing producing highly impactful publications. These results highlight the significant role of AI-assisted writing in reshaping not only how research is produced, but also how research teams are formed and assembled. Our findings call for policy improvements in research evaluation, funding, and training to address this emerging trend.