  The impact and originality are two critical dimensions for evaluating
scientific publications, measured by citation and disruption metrics
respectively. Despite the extensive effort made to understand the statistical
properties and evolution of each of these metrics, the relations between the
two remain unclear. In this paper, we study the evolution during last 70 years
of the correlation between scientific papers' citation and disruption, finding
surprisingly a decreasing trend from positive to negative correlations over the
years. Consequently, during the years, there are fewer and fewer disruptive
works among the highly cited papers. These results suggest that highly
disruptive studies nowadays attract less attention from the scientific
community. The analysis on papers' references supports this trend, showing that
papers citing older references, less popular references and diverse references
become to have less citations. Possible explanations for the less attention
phenomenon could be due to the increasing information overload in science, and
citations become more and more prominent for impact. This is supported by the
evidence that research fields with more papers have a more negative correlation
between citation and disruption. Finally, we show the generality of our
findings by analyzing and comparing six disciplines.
