Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science

Encompassing an intricately profound propensity for revolutionary, paradigm-shifting ramifications and the potential to wield an irrefutably disruptive sway on forthcoming research endeavors, the notion of the Disruption Index (DI) has surfaced as an object of fervent scientific scrutiny within the realm of scientometrics. Nevertheless, its implementation faces multifaceted constraints. Through a meticulous inquiry, we methodically dissect the limitations of DI, encompassing: (a) susceptibility to variations in reference numbers, (b) vulnerability to intentional author manipulations, (c) heterogeneous manifestations across diverse subject fields, (d) disparities across publication years, (e) misalignment with established scientific impact measures, (f) inadequacy in convergent validity with expert-selected milestones, and (g) a prevalent concentration around zero in its distribution. Unveiling the root causes of these challenges, we propose a viable solution encapsulated in the Rescaled Disruption Index (RDI), achieved through comprehensive rescaling across fields, years, and references. Our empirical investigations unequivocally demonstrate the efficacy of RDI, unveiling the universal nature of disruption distributions in science. This introduces a robust and refined framework for assessing disruptive potential in the scientific landscape while preserving the core principles of the index.