Researchers: Is this framework useful, or complete BS?[D](reddit.com)

Title: Researchers: Is this framework useful, or complete BS? I'm working on a visual framework that tries to describe how research progresses from simply collecting information to producing genuinely original discoveries. The image isn't intended to be a formal scientific model or a replacement for established research methodology. It's just an attempt to build an intuitive mental model that students and early-career researchers can use. The basic progression is: Level 0: Raw copy-paste / plagiarism Level 1: Information compilation Level 2: Understanding & summarization Level 3: Comparison & evaluation Level 4: Interpretation & analysis Level 5: Applying knowledge to solve problems Level 6: Designing experiments that generate new evidence Level 7: Combining existing ideas in novel ways Level 8: Making an original contribution (new method, dataset, benchmark, algorithm, theory, etc.) Level 9: Breakthrough work that significantly changes a field Level 10: Paradigm-shifting discoveries that redefine how we understand a domain Some examples I had in mind: Level 2: A literature review that accurately explains existing work. Level 4: An analysis explaining why Transformers scale better than earlier architectures. Level 5: Building and evaluating a better RAG pipeline for a real-world application. Level 6: Running controlled experiments to test whether a new training strategy improves performance. Level 7: Combining ideas from two different fields to create a new research direction. Level 8: Publishing a genuinely new architecture, benchmark, or algorithm. Level 9: Attention Is All You Need (Transformers) opening an entirely new direction for AI. Level 10: Think of discoveries on the scale of Einstein's relativity or Newton's mechanics—rare, civilization-level shifts. I know this is subjective, which is exactly why I'm posting it here. I'd really appreciate criticism from people who actually do research. Some questions I'm hoping you can answer: Is this progression fundamentally reasonable, or is it misleading? Which levels don't make sense? Are there levels that should be merged or split? Am I confusing difficulty with originality? What dimensions are missing? (Novelty, rigor, reproducibility, significance, etc.) Is there an existing framework in academia that already captures this idea better? If you were mentoring a new PhD student, would you find something like this useful, or would you throw it away? Please don't worry about being polite—I genuinely want to know whether this is a useful teaching tool or just academic nonsense. If it's flawed, I'd much rather understand why than keep refining something built on a bad premise. submitted by /u/farhadak_and2005 [link] [Kommentare]