Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers

  • Phillip J. Haubrock
  • , Antonin Kouba
  • , Ismael Soto
  • , Neil Angelo S. Abreo
  • , Lorenzo Vilizzi
  • , Dagmara Blonska
  • , Ali Serhan Tarkan
  • , Vanessa De Santis
  • , Ronaldo Sousa
  • , Antonio Barbosa Nogueira
  • , Senne Heeren
  • , Joana Garrido Nogueira
  • , Carlos Cano-Barbacil
  • , Bruno Cremella
  • , Diederik Strubbe
  • , Janine Pereira da Silva
  • , Riccardo Poloni
  • , Pablo Deschepper
  • , Eli S. J. Thore
  • , Benjamin Misteli
  • Jingrui Sun, Martina Panisi, David Dudgeon, Valentini Stamatiadou, Shams M. Galib, Chelly Maes, Nompumelelo C. Baso, Wouter Beukema, Barbora Stevove, Eva Zahorska, Irmak Kurtul, Davinder Kaur, Augusto Frederico Huber, Dariusz Halabowski, Janeide de Assis Guilherme Padilha, Paride Balzani, Cuneyt Kaya, Esra Baycelebi, Michele Mugnai, Danish A. Ahmed, Gulsah Sac, Sadi Aksu, Burak Malik Kaya, Mulkibar Ciftcioglu, Xiaoming Jiang, Marta Rodriguez-Rey, Irene Martin-Fores, Suzana Goncalves Leles, Lucian Parvulescu, Jan Pergl, Federica Rossetto, Hui Wei, Natalia I. Kirichenko, Elizabeta Briski, Luca Gallitelli, J. Robert Britton, Teun Everts

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › peer-review

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalNature Human Behaviour
Number of pages11
ISSN2397-3374
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3-Sept-2026

Keywords

  • Brain-drain
  • Impact
  • Knowledge
  • Performance
  • Reviewers
  • Science
  • Crisis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'How contemporary academic structures constrain scientific creativity and hold back early-career researchers'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this