That would be because that quote inspired the research. However the mechanism that they discovered is actually somewhat more subtle; it is that "rockstar scientists", intentionally or not, suppress radical new ideas coming into their disciplines. Since radical innovation is by and large something that the community-as-a-whole has (in the sense that each person has a tiny probability of coming up with the radical idea so the actual idea-havers are kind of randomly selected from the community), either implicit effects of "oh things are moving so fast in that field, these people are so smart, I will never measure up" or explicit effects of people in the field saying "why the heck would you pursue that path, it's obviously bonkers and we're doing so much better with this other approach..." convince those community members to not come forward with their radical innovation, even as it's sorely needed. Rather than the opponents of the idea dying, they are interested in the cases where the supporters of an idea die, which allows these radical ideas to come out of the woodwork.