Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
Disruption Index (CD-Index)/Evidence
Method evidence record

Disruption Index (CD-Index)

The disruption index, or CD index, classifies a scientific paper or patent by how the work that cites it treats the work it built on. Introduced by Russell Funk and Jason Owen-Smith in 2017 as a dynamic network measure of technological change, and popularized for science by Lingfei Wu, Dashun Wang, and James Evans in 2019, it asks a simple structural question: when later researchers cite a focal work, do they also keep citing that work's own references, or do they cite the focal work instead of its predecessors? If subsequent work cites the focal item but largely ignores its references, the item has disrupted its field, eclipsing what came before; if subsequent work cites both the item and its references together, the item has consolidated existing knowledge. The index runs from -1 (purely consolidating) to +1 (purely disrupting) and has become a standard tool for measuring whether contributions push science in new directions or deepen established lines.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Source record

Citations copied verbatim from the method’s source record. No claim-level verification is inferred from them.

Disruption Index (CD-Index): Measuring Consolidating versus Destabilizing Science and Technology
Taxonomic method record · process-pipeline / bibliometrics
  • Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. (2017). A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change. Management Science, 63(3), 791-817. · DOI 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2366
  • Wu, L., Wang, D., & Evans, J. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566, 378-382. · DOI 10.1038/s41586-019-0941-9
Open full method

Curated claims

Claims persisted in the evidence ledger, each with its own assessment.

No curated claims yet

This view does not invent a claim assessment when the ledger has none.

Related methods

Generated from the method graph and shown as machine-suggested relations — no evidence claim is inferred.

Taxonomic bucketCitation Distribution Modeling (Lognormal/Tsallis)machine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyPatent–Paper Citation Linkage (NPL)machine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Taxonomic bucketSleeping Beauties and Delayed Recognitionmachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Evidence status

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Sources

2 recorded citations, copied from the method source record.

Actions

Open method page
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account