Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the phenomenon of "pivot penalty" in research, where scientists experience a decline in citation impact when they shift their research focus away from their original field, with the penalty increasing as the shift becomes more significant [2][5][9]. Group 1: Research Findings - A new framework was developed to quantify the extent of deviation from existing research fields, analyzing 25.8 million scientific papers and 1.7 million patents from 1970 to 2015 [4]. - The study found that the "pivot penalty" is prevalent across all scientific and patent fields, and its severity has intensified over the past 50 years [5]. - The greater the deviation from the original research area, the weaker the integration with existing knowledge systems, leading to lower publication success rates and citation counts [5][7]. Group 2: Impact of External Events - Unexpected shocks in research fields, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, can push researchers to new areas, but this often results in significant pivot penalties [7][9]. - During the pandemic, many researchers shifted to COVID-related studies, which had high impact due to increased demand for information, yet those who deviated further from their original fields saw a notable decline in their research impact [7][9]. Group 3: Strategies to Mitigate Pivot Penalty - Strategies to reduce the pivot penalty include publishing new research in journals where the researcher has previously published, allowing familiar readership to engage with the new work [7]. - The findings highlight the need for researchers to adapt to new opportunities and challenges, which has significant implications for individual researchers, research institutions, and scientific policy [7][9]. Group 4: Editorial Perspective - The editorial in Nature emphasizes that researchers should not be penalized for shifting fields, as the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated the value of adapting research directions [8][10]. - It argues for a broader understanding of research value beyond citation counts, advocating for evaluation metrics that reflect the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration [10].