By analogy, a scientist who produces a study that goes unnoticed by the scientific community resembles the tree that falls unheard in the forest. From an empirical standpoint, the study undeniably exists: the methodology was implemented, and the results were documented—just as the tree produced sound waves. However, from an epistemic or perceptual perspective, the study functions as if it never took place, since no one engaged with or acknowledged it. Its impact, therefore, is null. In this sense, it is worth recalling the assertion of the physicist Carlo Rovelli that scientists who make no impact are not merely invisible; they are, in a profound ontological sense, non-existent https://pachecotorgal.com/2022/06/08/interactions-as-a-paramount-existential-principle-and-the-scientists-who-do-not-exist/
The phenomenon of invisible—or scientifically non-existent—researchers constitutes not merely an inefficiency but a profound distortion of the scientific enterprise. The funding, time, and institutional capital expended on work that goes unnoticed or unacknowledged produce virtually no intellectual return, while simultaneously depriving other, more productive researchers of the means to advance knowledge. This misallocation corrodes the very foundations of merit-based science, rewarding existence over impact. Even more troubling, empirical evidence indicates that these “invisible” scientists exert a persistently harmful influence on the careers of young scientists, distorting mentorship structures, and perpetuating cycles of mediocrity that undermine the collective progress of science itself. https://19-pacheco-torgal-19.blogspot.com/2024/08/warning-to-young-researchers-hidden.html