Abstract The temporal dimension of citation accumulation poses fundamental challenges for quantitative research evaluations, particularly in assessing disruptive and consolidating research through the disruption index ( D ). While prior studies emphasize minimum citation windows (e.g., 5 years) for reliable citation impact measurements, the time‐sensitive nature of D —which quantifies a paper's capacity to eclipse prior knowledge—remains underexplored. This study addresses two critical gaps: (1) determining the temporal thresholds required for publications to meet citation/reference prerequisites, and (2) identifying meaningful citation windows that balance early predictability and longitudinal stability. By analyzing millions of publications across four fields with varying citation dynamics, we employ several metrics to track D stabilization patterns. Key findings reveal that a 10‐year window achieves >80% agreement with findings without using any fixed citation window (here, D values are calculated based on all bibliographic records in the dataset), while shorter windows exhibit instability. Publications with ≥30 references stabilize 1–3 years faster, and extreme cases (top/bottom 5% D values) become identifiable within 5 years—enabling early detection of 60–80% of highly disruptive and consolidating works. The findings offer significant implications for scholarly evaluation and science policy, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of citation window length in research assessment (based on D ).
Chen et al. (Wed,) studied this question.