Cool comic. My personal view on the matter is that the advent of globalisation and the internet (and perhaps printed matter before that to a lesser extent) natu

Cool comic. My personal view on the matter is that the advent of globalisation and the internet (and perhaps printed matter before that to a lesser extent) naturally leads to a handful of superstars rather than a basket full of mentors. You are not just flooded with research, but you are inevitably guided by reported research. Why would you read an obscure paper if you don't already know it's worth it and it's a good paper? I would as a suggestion say that be happy to do self-discovery of known results as a way to build your core skills, without an obsession with making a contribution and do what you can to keep your grant. If you do discover something new, study it to some level of depth so that your paper is actually accessible to the masses rather than publishing a new result that becomes obscure. (Which is the worst case scenario, isn't it?) EDIT: In terms of data volume vs. theory, the same holds for you, personally. The more time you spend reading disparate things, the less focused you become on knowing less things but in depth.