Time spent reading may lead directly to more science, but it's not always the most prominent path, plus you have to put down the books occasionally and get into action or the research will stagnate because of a thing called no progress whatsoever.
Science is the part that may lead to future publications. Maybe, maybe not.
Often best conducted with the hands, eyes and mind not overly bound or preoccupied with materials previously published.
Remember the default, especially in hard science, is no progress whatsoever, with gradual loss of technology developed during previous lifetimes.
So reading can be most essential to keep previous progress from being forgotten or lost completely.
I say don't stop reading altogether but get into action as much as possible.
More like vacuum tube technology and those kinds of things where only a few decades ago there was orders of magnitude more widespread capabilities which are steadily declining now.
humbug! boo hiss! Do you go to concerts and critique the scaffolding? :)
And that is not the first step. The first step is to have a curious thought, to seize on it, to rush out to test it. And only then, maybe, you do a lit review, do it more formally, and write it up.
I just was starting to eat Gumbalaya, and I paused. ... I remembered the leftover bit of gochujang chili oil in the fridge from a restaurant, the one I've been trying to find a use for. Surely no! Bayou creole with this already a bit-too-far Korean-Chinese fusion? I couldn't imagine it. And surely then, for science, I had to try ... (it was incredible, but could have been awful - no way to know without trying it). I suppose I should review lit and write it up ...
