research articles on novel

Search Menu
Sign in through your institution
Browse content in Arts and Humanities
Browse content in Archaeology
Prehistoric Archaeology
Browse content in Art
History of Art
Browse content in Classical Studies
Classical Literature
Classical Reception
Classical History
Greek and Roman Archaeology
Digital Humanities
Browse content in History
Diplomatic History
Environmental History
Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
History by Period
Legal and Constitutional History
Regional and National History
Social and Cultural History
Theory, Methods, and Historiography
World History
Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
Language Teaching Theory and Methods
Browse content in Linguistics
Applied Linguistics
Language Evolution
Language Families
Lexicography
Browse content in Literature
Bibliography
Literary Studies (American)
Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
Literary Studies (British and Irish)
Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
Browse content in Media Studies
Browse content in Music
Applied Music
Medicine and Music
Music Theory and Analysis
Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
Musicology and Music History
Browse content in Philosophy
Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
Epistemology
History of Western Philosophy
Metaphysics
Moral Philosophy
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Science
Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
Practical Ethics
Browse content in Religion
Christianity
Judaism and Jewish Studies
Religion and Science
Religion and Law
Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
Religious Studies
Browse content in Society and Culture
Ethical Issues and Debates
Browse content in Law
Arbitration
Company and Commercial Law
Comparative Law
Competition Law
Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
Employment and Labour Law
Environment and Energy Law
Financial Law
History of Law
Human Rights and Immigration
Intellectual Property Law
Browse content in International Law
Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
Public International Law
IT and Communications Law
Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
Law and Society
Legal System and Practice
Medical and Healthcare Law
Browse content in Medicine and Health
Browse content in Allied Health Professions
Dietetics and Nutrition
Physiotherapy
Radiography
Anaesthetics
Clinical Neuroscience
Browse content in Clinical Medicine
Acute Medicine
Cardiovascular Medicine
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
Dermatology
Endocrinology and Diabetes
Gastroenterology
Geriatric Medicine
Infectious Diseases
Medical Toxicology
Medical Oncology
Rheumatology
Sleep Medicine
Community Medical Services
Critical Care
Forensic Medicine
History of Medicine
Medical Skills
Medical Ethics
Browse content in Medical Dentistry
Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
Medical Statistics and Methodology
Browse content in Neurology
Neuropathology
Nursing Studies
Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Gynaecology
Occupational Medicine
Paediatrics
Browse content in Pathology
Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
Medical Microbiology and Virology
Patient Education and Information
Browse content in Pharmacology
Psychopharmacology
Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
Molecular Biology and Genetics
Reproduction, Growth and Development
Primary Care
Professional Development in Medicine
Browse content in Psychiatry
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Forensic Psychiatry
Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Public Health
Browse content in Radiology
Clinical Radiology
Interventional Radiology
Radiation Oncology
Reproductive Medicine
Browse content in Surgery
Cardiothoracic Surgery
Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
Neurosurgery
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
Browse content in Science and Mathematics
Browse content in Biological Sciences
Aquatic Biology
Biochemistry
Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
Developmental Biology
Ecology and Conservation
Evolutionary Biology
Genetics and Genomics
Microbiology
Molecular and Cell Biology
Plant Sciences and Forestry
Research Methods in Life Sciences
Structural Biology
Systems Biology
Zoology and Animal Sciences
Browse content in Chemistry
Medicinal Chemistry
Mineralogy and Gems
Physical Chemistry
Browse content in Computer Science
Artificial Intelligence
Computer Architecture and Logic Design
Human-Computer Interaction
Mathematical Theory of Computation
Browse content in Computing
Computer Security
Computer Networking and Communications
Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
Atmospheric Sciences
Environmental Geography
Geology and the Lithosphere
Meteorology and Climatology
Browse content in Engineering and Technology
Agriculture and Farming
Biological Engineering
Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
Energy Technology
Engineering (General)
Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
Transport Technology and Trades
Browse content in Environmental Science
Environmental Sustainability
Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
Browse content in Materials Science
Ceramics and Glasses
Composite Materials
Nanotechnology
Browse content in Mathematics
Applied Mathematics
Biomathematics and Statistics
Mathematical Education
Mathematical Analysis
Probability and Statistics
Pure Mathematics
Browse content in Neuroscience
Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
Neuroscientific Techniques
Browse content in Physics
Astronomy and Astrophysics
Classical Mechanics
Relativity and Gravitation
Browse content in Psychology
Clinical Psychology
Cognitive Psychology
Cognitive Neuroscience
Health Psychology
Music Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational Psychology
Browse content in Social Sciences
Browse content in Anthropology
Human Evolution
Browse content in Business and Management
Human Resource Management
Industrial and Employment Relations
Industry Studies
Information and Communication Technologies
Organizational Theory and Behaviour
Public and Nonprofit Management
Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
Criminology
Browse content in Economics
Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
Economic History
Economic Development and Growth
Financial Markets
Financial Institutions and Services
Health, Education, and Welfare
Labour and Demographic Economics
Law and Economics
Public Economics
Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
Browse content in Education
Schools Studies
Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
Environment
Browse content in Human Geography
Economic Geography
Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
Communication Studies
Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
Browse content in Politics
Foreign Policy
Gender and Politics
International Relations
International Organization (Politics)
Political Behaviour
Political Economy
Political Institutions
Political Theory
Political Sociology
Public Policy
Public Administration
Quantitative Political Methodology
Regional Political Studies
Security Studies
Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
African Studies
Japanese Studies
Research and Information
Browse content in Social Work
Addictions and Substance Misuse
Browse content in Sociology
Economic Sociology
Gender and Sexuality
Gerontology and Ageing
Health, Illness, and Medicine
Migration Studies
Race and Ethnicity
Social Movements and Social Change
Social Research and Statistics
Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
Sociology of Religion
Urban and Rural Studies
Journals A to Z
Books on Oxford Academic

Most Read in Literature

From Shakespeare's plays to modern literary trends, explore a collection of our most read recent articles and chapters from our literature portfolio. Enhance your knowledge with free access to these highlights from our books and journals until December 2022.

Browse our collections

Browse our journals, browse our books, affiliations.

Copyright © 2024
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals

Affiliations.

1 School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
2 Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
3 Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163.
4 Digital, Data and Design Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
PMID: 36395142
PMCID: PMC9704701
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118046119

There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals Cell and Cell Reports and 6,785 manuscripts submitted in 2018 to 47 journals published by the Institute of Physics Publishing . Following previous work that found that a balance of novel and conventional ideas predicts citation impact, we measure the novelty and conventionality of manuscripts by the atypicality of combinations of journals in their reference lists, taking the 90th percentile most atypical combination as "novelty" and the 50th percentile as "conventionality." We find that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance; submissions in the top novelty quintile are 6.5 percentage points more likely than bottom quintile ones to get accepted. Higher conventionality is also associated with acceptance (+16.3% top-bottom quintile difference). Disagreement among peer reviewers was not systematically related to submission novelty or conventionality, and editors select strongly for novelty even conditional on reviewers' recommendations (+7.0% top-bottom quintile difference). Manuscripts exhibiting higher novelty were more highly cited. Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty.

Keywords: bias; novelty; peer review; publishing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

During 2021 and 2022, K.R.L. was compensated for educational work he did with RELX - the parent company of Cell Press.

Coefficients from OLS predicting acceptance…

Coefficients from OLS predicting acceptance from novelty ( A ) and conventionality (…

Associations between novelty and success…

Associations between novelty and success in the pooled sample (black curves), Cell (orange…

OLS regression coefficients of novelty…

OLS regression coefficients of novelty ( A ) and conventionality ( B )…

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Europe PubMed Central
PubMed Central

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

October 4, 2013

Novel Finding: Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy

The types of books we read may affect how we relate to others

By Julianne Chiaet

How important is reading fiction in socializing school children? Researchers at The New School in New York City have found evidence that literary fiction improves a reader’s capacity to understand what others are thinking and feeling.

Emanuele Castano, a social psychologist, along with PhD candidate David Kidd conducted five studies in which they divided a varying number of participants (ranging from 86 to 356) and gave them different reading assignments: excerpts from genre (or popular) fiction, literary fiction, nonfiction or nothing. After they finished the excerpts the participants took a test that measured their ability to infer and understand other people’s thoughts and emotions. The researchers found, to their surprise, a significant difference between the literary- and genre-fiction readers.

When study participants read non-fiction or nothing, their results were unimpressive. When they read excerpts of genre fiction, such as Danielle Steel’s The Sins of the Mother , their test results were dually insignificant. However, when they read literary fiction, such as The Round House by Louise Erdrich, their test results improved markedly—and, by implication, so did their capacity for empathy. The study was published October 4 in Science .

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The results are consistent with what literary criticism has to say about the two genres—and indeed, this may be the first empirical evidence linking literary and psychological theories of fiction. Popular fiction tends to portray situations that are otherworldly and follow a formula to take readers on a roller-coaster ride of emotions and exciting experiences. Although the settings and situations are grand, the characters are internally consistent and predictable, which tends to affirm the reader’s expectations of others. It stands to reason that popular fiction does not expand the capacity to empathize.

Literary fiction, by contrast, focuses more on the psychology of characters and their relationships. “Often those characters’ minds are depicted vaguely, without many details, and we’re forced to fill in the gaps to understand their intentions and motivations,” Kidd says. This genre prompts the reader to imagine the characters’ introspective dialogues. This psychological awareness carries over into the real world, which is full of complicated individuals whose inner lives are usually difficult to fathom. Although literary fiction tends to be more realistic than popular fiction, the characters disrupt reader expectations, undermining prejudices and stereotypes. They support and teach us values about social behavior, such as the importance of understanding those who are different from ourselves.

The results suggest that reading fiction is a valuable socializing influence. The study data couldinform debates over how much fiction should be included in educational curricula and whether reading programs should be implemented in prisons, where reading literary fiction might improve inmates’ social functioning and empathy. Castano also hopes the finding will encourage autistic people to engage in more literary fiction, in the hope it could improve their ability to empathize without the side effects of medication.

Harvard Business School →
Faculty & Research →
November 22, 2022
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Is Novel Research Worth Doing? Evidence from Peer Review at 49 Journals

Format: Print

About The Author

Karim R. Lakhani

Freelancer, Ltd.

Don’t expect juniors to teach senior professionals to use generative ai: emerging technology risks and novice ai risk mitigation tactics.

Research Policy

Being Together in Place as a Catalyst for Scientific Advance

Freelancer, Ltd. By: Christopher Stanton, Karim R. Lakhani, Jin Hyun Paik and Nina Cohodes
Don’t Expect Juniors to Teach Senior Professionals to Use Generative AI: Emerging Technology Risks and Novice AI Risk Mitigation Tactics By: Katherine C. Kellogg, Hila Lifshitz-Assaf, Steven Randazzo, Ethan Mollick, Frabrizio Dell'Acqua, Edward McFowland III, François Candelon and Karim R. Lakhani
Being Together in Place as a Catalyst for Scientific Advance By: Eamon Duede, Misha Teplitskiy, Karim R. Lakhani and James Evans

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Disruptive science plummets over the past 50 years

Novelty in Research: What It Is and How to Know Your Work is Original

Novelty in research: What it is and how to know if your work is original

One of the key prerequisites for researcher success, irrespective of their field of study, is identifying the novelty in research. They hope to make new discoveries that build on the work of others and produce fresh perspectives on existing knowledge in their field. To achieve this, researchers invest considerable time and effort in reading relevant literature, conducting experiments, and staying up to date on the latest developments in their own and related fields. Most journals seek to publish research that is novel, significant, and interesting to its readers. Establishing novelty in research is also critical when applying for funding, which makes it essential to prove this early in the research process. But what is meant by novelty in research and how can one judge the novelty of their research study? This article will help you answer these questions in the simplest manner.

Table of Contents

What is meant by novelty in research?

The word ‘novelty’ comes from the Latin word ‘novus,’ which simply means new. Apart from new, the term is also associated with things, ideas or products for instance, that are original or unusual. Novelty in research refers to the introduction of a new idea or a unique perspective that adds to the existing knowledge in a particular field of study. It involves bringing something fresh and original to the table that has not been done before or exploring an existing topic in a new and innovative way. Novelty in research expands the boundaries of a particular research discipline and provides new insights into previously unexplored areas. It is also one of the first things academic journals look for when evaluating a manuscript submitted for publishing. This makes it essential for researchers to ensure novelty in research in order to create new knowledge and make a significant contribution to their field of study.

How can you ensure novelty in research?

Academics are often immersed in their research and so focused on excellence that it can be difficult to examine your work as an author and judge its novelty in research objectively. But this challenge can be overcome with time and practice by adding research reading to your daily schedule. Assessing novelty in research means evaluating how new and original the ideas or findings presented in a study are, in comparison to existing knowledge in the field. Here are some ways to judge the novelty of research:

Conduct a literature review: A literature review is an essential component of any research project, and it helps to establish the context for the study by identifying what is already known about the topic. By reviewing the existing literature, researchers can identify gaps in the knowledge and formulate new questions or hypotheses to investigate, ensuring novelty in research.
Compare with previous studies: Researchers can assess the novelty of their work by comparing their findings to those of previous studies in the same or related fields. If the results differ significantly from what has been previously reported, it can be an indication that the study is novel and potentially significant.
Read target journal publications: Subscribe to your target journal and other reputed journals in your field of study and keep up with the articles it publishes. Since most high-impact journals typically ensure novelty in research when publishing papers, this will help you keep track of the developments and progress being made in your subject area.
Assess contribution to the field: One way to assess novelty in research is to evaluate how much it contributes to your specific field. Research that makes a significant contribution to advancing knowledge or addressing important questions is often considered more valuable than those that simply replicate elements from previously published research.
Consider an alternative methodology: Even if the topic or area of study has been studied, one can bring in novelty in research by exploring various methodologies or by tweaking the research question to provide new insights and perspectives. Researchers can highlight aspects of the study that have not been done before, introduce these in the proposed research design, and illuminate how this will ensure novelty in research.
Get support from your peers: Engage with your mentors/supervisors, professors, peers, and other experts in the field to get their feedback on introducing novelties in their research. It’s a good idea to join and actively participate in scientific research and scholarly groups or networks where users provide updates on new technological innovations and development.
Make research reading a habit: An overwhelming number of research papers are published every day, making it difficult for researchers to keep up with new, relevant developments in the world of research. This is where online tools for researchers can help you simplify this process while saving on time and effort. Smart AI-driven apps like R Discovery can understand your areas of interest and curate a reading feed with personalized article recommendation, alerts on newly published articles, summaries to help you quickly evaluate articles, and many other useful features for researchers. By taking the search out of research, it gives you back time that you can then spend to stay updated and ensure novelty in research.

In an ideal world, all research done would be completely original. Yet with rapid advances in technology and research, there are bound to be overlaps with previously published papers. The key here is to find a new way of looking at old problems, trying new methodologies and angles, and coming up with interesting insights that can add to or alter current knowledge in your field of research. Smart online tools have made it easier to read and keep up with the latest in research and we’re sure the tips above will help you better assess your project and judge the novelty of your research study.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !

What is IMRaD Format in Research?

What is a Review Article? How to Write it?

English Literature - Science topic

Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
Indian J Anaesth
v.67(3); 2023 Mar
PMC10220166

Novelty in research: A common reason for manuscript rejection!

Nishant kumar.

Department of Anaesthesia, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India

Zulfiqar Ali

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Rudrashish Haldar

2 Department of Anesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

We often hear back from reviewers and editors of scientific journals that a particular manuscript (original research, case report, series or letter to the editor) has not been accepted because it lacks novelty. Though disheartening, the reason for such a response from said reviewers needs proper elucidation, as a moral obligation from the editorial board towards the authors of the manuscripts.

Research, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary is ‘a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding’. [ 1 ] Novelty on the other hand is defined as ‘the quality of being new, original, or unusual’ or a ‘new or unfamiliar thing or experience’. Therefore, adding the adjective novel along with research is actually one of the most common redundancies that is similar to ‘return back’ or ‘revert back’ and denotes one and the same thing! [ 1 ]

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the English language, novel research can be best described as one or more elements of research that are unique, such as a new methodology or a new observation that leads to the acquisition of new knowledge. It is this novelty that contributes to scientific progress. Since the main aim of research is to unravel what is unknown or to challenge views or ideas that may or may not be based on sound scientific principles, this exclusivity of novel research therefore allows us to expand our horizon beyond the realms of known domains. [ 2 ]

Having defined novelty in research, one of the most common mistakes that researchers commit is confusing novelty with originality. These terms are often used interchangeably. Originality implies the genuineness of the work and signifying that the said work has not been copied from any other source. Originality can always be examined by plagiarism checkers, and data is often analysed for duplication or fabrication only if there exists a certain doubt regarding its factuality. A study, therefore, can be mutually exclusive i.e. novel, but not original, or it can be original but not novel. It is the latter that reviewers and editors encounter most often.

The most common scenario encountered in anaesthesia related manuscripts that lacks novelty is the substitution of the same anaesthetic technique to different surgical procedures or patient populations (based on gender or age), with no expected change in the result. Here, the hypothesis and study designs are almost identical; however, the agents are replaced with different ones. A classic example is the comparison of the duration of analgesia with a longer acting analgesic or that of a local anaesthetic with a shorter one. The intrinsic properties of a drug are already well known, and, irrespective of it being an abdominal surgery or a limb surgery, the drugs are going to behave according to their pharmacological properties. Similarly, modern airway devices, such as video laryngoscopes, have conclusively been proven to be better aids than the conventional ones. A comparison of any new laryngoscope would definitely be a novel idea, in terms of whether it outperforms the existing device. If a certain number of studies, systematic reviews, or metanalyses have already been published on that particular device or drug, the study undertaken cannot be considered novel unless the results of the aforementioned study, utilising sound scientific principles, actually challenge or contradict the existing ideas.

Another common scenario faced by the reviewers or editors is the anaesthetic management of common or uncommon syndromes or diseases. They are often well described in literature, but when managed as per the existing guidelines and expected challenges they do not constitute novelty. A case report is novel and worth publishing if an unforeseen or unanticipated event has occurred or the case has been managed in a unique or unconventional manner or significant innovative skills or equipment have been employed. However, due caution has to be exercised as this should not lead the researcher to be overtly adventurous or show undue bravado by going against the principles of patient safety.

Now here lies the contradiction. We have been harping on novelty, introducing new ideas, and challenging old fixed ideas when conducting research and reporting cases. However, at the same time, due caution must be exercised, and one must not to be adventurous, unconventional, or bold. There is a fine line of distinction between these two. Herein comes the role of ethics, a separate topic of discussion altogether.

Research or advancement may not always be novel just by intervention or experimentation. Theoretical or hypothesis testing may also contribute paradigm-changing findings. Some of these may include thought-based experiments, rectifying or logical rearrangement of existing knowledge, re-evaluating space and time, utilising principles of philosophy, and analysing already existing data from a new and different perspective. [ 3 ] A thorough literature search is pivotal for designing a novel research project as it helps to understand known facts and gaps. An attempt at bridging identified research gaps adds to the novelty of the study. [ 2 ]

Another aspect of novel research is technological advancement. Most research starts from an idea, a thought, or an observation that further leads to hypothesis building, experimentation, data collection, analysis, and, finally, principle building. Technological advancement may stem from any of these phases. Novelty in research propels the industry to excel and outdo itself. [ 4 ]

Can novelty in research be measured? The answer is a resounding yes. Traditionally, it has been measured through peer reviews and by applying bibliometric measures such as citation or text data, keeping in mind their inherent limitations. However, word embedding is a new technique that can reliably measure novelty and even predict future citations. However, this is currently limited by publicly available word-embedding libraries and its high costs. [ 5 ]

To the average author and reader, novelty adds to their knowledge and makes them aware of complications that they may encounter. It offers a way out by conventional or different measures, within the realm of scientific, ethical and principles of social justice, should they get stuck, keeping in mind the quote of Hippocrates: ‘ Primum non nocere’ ( First, do no harm ).

There is no denying that the Digital Era has impacted every aspect of the world, including academics and research. Many of these changes have brought significant advantages in global development, such as the ability to communicate with someone regardless of their location or to expand the reach of a business to engage a wide customer base. So much success has been created because of technology, but it has also brought a few disadvantages.

The global and competitive aspect of research means that scholars have to work a bit harder to stand out from the competition in their field if they want to make impacts and obtain research funding grants. To do this, innovation must be combined with novel approaches. But what defines novelty isn’t always cut and dried in the academic landscape.

Defining Novelty

For many people, the word “novelty” is associated with the newest toy on the shelves at Christmas. The connotation includes ideas of something that is superficial but shiny, exciting but quickly discarded after the initial “novelty” wears off. In research, this term means something completely different.

To a researcher and a funding source, a novel idea means something that is unique in the field or scope you’re analyzing. It can be a new methodology or a new design that sets the stage for new knowledge. It could be an approach that purposefully attempts to add more understanding to the current knowledge base.

In general, it’s a characteristic of research that takes a topic that has already been the focus of experiments in the past and puts a new and original spin on it. Scholars can do this by changing factors like the design itself, the location or demographics of previous studies, or shifting the database entirely. The best way to know if your idea is novel or not is to do in-depth preliminary research and compare your idea with what is already out there on the subject.

Arguments Against Novelty and For Tradition

Scholars today find themselves facing an extra obstacle in the quest for publishing their work in a prestigious journal. Many of today’s publishing companies are looking for novelty over authenticity and expertise. This is because research journals want to publish work that is going to be cited, which is usually a topic that is new and exciting.

The arguments against this often support the claim that many of these “novel” studies don’t have enough support backing them because they focus on the “shiny” aspects of the research rather than the data that backs up the outcome. Funders award grants based on innovative ideas, but then the research that is necessary to substantiate these novel approaches and build on those precarious foundations is pushed to the side. When a grant request has ideas such as “innovative” and “novel” in it, it’s more likely to be approved, and then published, than those that build on those same approaches.

Why a Balanced Approach is Necessary

Some researchers argue that this push for novelty is exactly part of the reason why the field of science is currently in a reproducibility crisis. The focus on getting novel articles published has taken over the in-depth analysis of research in peer review. A balanced approach is required in order to ensure that progress continues to be made in all fields, but that the work published is put through rigorous review processes to ensure replicability and legitimacy.

When scholars see the reward that comes with inflated claims and specific adjectives to define their research as novel, the temptation arises to compromise the neutrality of the process. In the rush for reward, there is neglect in providing evidence to support each claim.

On the other hand, some journals are attempting a counterbalance to prevent weak articles. They want to ensure every idea that’s even remotely incomplete is addressed, which isn’t always feasible and can even be a deterrent to the reader. If a basic idea should be widely understood by someone reading the journal, the fact that the author lays it out anyway can be seen as condescending or a waste of the reader’s time.

Instead, a balanced approach is necessary, in which the editors attempt to scout out the long-term impact of a novel idea and how it might affect future studies. These newer ideas aren’t always backed with solid evidence at the time. It can take years for this to develop. But as a whole, robust work needs to be balanced with reproducible research.

Afghanistan
Åland Islands
American Samoa
Antigua and Barbuda
Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bouvet Island
British Indian Ocean Territory
Brunei Darussalam
Burkina Faso
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
Cook Islands
Côte d'Ivoire
Curacao !Curaçao
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
Faroe Islands
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Territories
Guinea-Bissau
Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Isle of Man
Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of)
Korea (Republic of)
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Liechtenstein
Marshall Islands
Micronesia (Federated States of)
Moldova (Republic of)
Netherlands
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Norfolk Island
North Macedonia
Northern Mariana Islands
Palestine, State of
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Puerto Rico
Russian Federation
Saint Barthélemy
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Martin (French part)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Sierra Leone
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
Solomon Islands
South Africa
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
South Sudan
Svalbard and Jan Mayen
Switzerland
Syrian Arab Republic
Tanzania, United Republic of
Timor-Leste
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
United States of America
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Virgin Islands (British)
Virgin Islands (U.S.)
Wallis and Futuna
Western Sahara

Supported by

editors’ choice

6 New Books We Recommend This Week

Suggested reading from critics and editors at The New York Times.

Share full article

Longtime readers of The New York Times may recognize the name Margalit Fox from the byline of some of our most memorable obituaries . But Fox (who worked at the Book Review before she started reporting on dead people, and who retired from The Times in 2018) has also written five books, on topics ranging from linguistics to true crime ; her latest, “The Talented Mrs. Mandelbaum,” explains how a 19th-century Jewish immigrant worked her way up from street peddler to mastermind of a vast criminal enterprise that made her one of America’s first mob bosses. That’s one of our recommended books this week. Maybe read it with Dan Slater’s “The Incorruptibles,” which takes the story of Jewish organized crime in New York into the 20th century?

Also up: a surprisingly fascinating look at the science of keeping things cold, and new novels from Lev Grossman, Claire Lombardo and Liz Moore. Happy reading. — Gregory Cowles

FROSTBITE: How Refrigeration Changed Our Food, Our Planet, and Ourselves Nicola Twilley

In this absorbing exploration of the vast network of refrigerated trucks, rail cars and shipping containers that bring us bananas and avocados all year round, Twilley illuminates the impact on our food as well as the colorful characters who keep the system going.

“Engrossing. … Combines lucid history, science and a thoughtful consideration of how daily life today is both dependent on and deformed by this matrix of artificial cold.”

From Sallie Tisdale’s review

Penguin Press | $30

THE BRIGHT SWORD: A Novel of King Arthur Lev Grossman

Grossman’s latest is a winning dive into the world of King Arthur. The novel follows a knight who dreams of joining the Round Table, but when he arrives, the king is dead. Disappointed but not defeated, he embarks on a quest with the remaining knights to figure out the future of Camelot.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Art, Cinema, Law, Money Course Guide

Finding Books
Journals and Databases
Bibliographies, Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias
Course Readings
Class Resources

Librarian for English Language and Literature, Linguistics, Psychology, and Arabic/Persian Studies

Finding Journals and Articles

You may need to find scholarly, peer-reviewed articles for research in this class. You can find articles a variety of ways -- the first is to go directly to a scholarly journal that publishes on the topic you need. The second is to search within subject specific databases. Searching directly within a journal will give you results only from that journal, but you know you're looking at something directly related to your subject. Searching within databases will give you a broader spectrum of results, but some of them may be only tangentially related to your topic.

This page has a list of journals specifically relating to the intersection between Law and Art -- each journal has a description and is linked UMD's catalog. This page also has a list of law and/or art databases -- each database has a description and a link.

Art, Antiquity and Law The principal aim of Art, Antiquity and Law is to inform and tell those who work in the art and antiquity world about the law governing their activities and the policies behind the law. The art and history community should be aware of the role which law plays in shaping cultural policy. Art, Antiquity and Law, besides giving an account of new legislation, case-law, public documents and official initiatives, gives considered opinions on more general points of law and practice.
Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal Since 1982, the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal (AELJ) has been a leader in national and international legal scholarship. It publishes a variety of works concerning the First Amendment, intellectual property, entertainment, and communications law.
The Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts is a quarterly, student-edited publication dedicated to up-to-date and in-depth coverage of legal issues involving the art, entertainment, sports, intellectual property, and communications industries. Founded in 1975, the Journal is one of the most-cited periodicals devoted to arts law issues and features contributions by scholars, judges, practitioners, and students.
International Journal of Cultural Property International Journal of Cultural Property provides a vital, international, and multidisciplinary forum for the broad spectrum of views surrounding cultural property, cultural heritage, and related issues. This peer-reviewed journal publishes original research papers, case notes, documents of record, chronicles, conference reports, and book reviews.
Journal for Art Market Studies The Journal for Art Market Studies is an academic peer-reviewed open-access journal for current international research on the art market of all periods.
Journal of Law and Society The Journal of Law and Society presents an interdisciplinary approach to socio-legal studies. It covers issues from a range of legal cultures, involving theory and relevant data and progressive policy of cross-cultural interest. Challenging, authoritative, and topical, the journal appeals to legal scholars as well as sociologists, criminologists, and other social scientists.
Law, Culture, and the Humanities This interdisciplinary journal publishes high quality work at the intersection of scholarship on law, culture and the humanities. It provides an outlet for people engaged in interdisciplinary, humanistically oriented legal scholarship. The mission of Law, Culture and the Humanities is to encourage dialogue across and among these fields about issues of interpretation, identity and values, authority, obligation, justice and law’s place in culture.
Law, Text, Culture Law Text Culture is a transcontinental, open access, peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal which aims to produce fresh insights and knowledges about law and jurisprudence across three interconnected axes: 1. Politics: engaging the relationship of force and resistance; 2. Aesthetics: eliciting the relationship of judgment and expression; 3. Ethics: exploring the relationship of self and other.
Law and Humanities Law and Humanities is a peer-reviewed journal, providing a forum for scholarly discourse within the arts and humanities around the subject of law. For this purpose, the arts and humanities disciplines are taken to include literature, history (including history of art), philosophy, theology, classics and the whole spectrum of performance and representational arts. Law and Humanities is principally concerned to engage with those aspects of human experience which are not empirically quantifiable or scientifically predictable.
Law and Literature Law and Literature was founded in 1988 as the journal of the Law and Literature movement. It has since become the leading interdisciplinary law journal directed to law and the arts, with a specific focus on critical theory, historical inquiry, and literary expression in its diverse media and forms. It welcomes articles examining intersections between literary and legal traditions, and provides a forum for reconsidering disciplinary boundaries and categories.
Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities Grounded in awareness that cutting-edge interdisciplinary exploration is crucial to a fuller understanding of both the law and the world at large, YJLH provides a unique intellectual arena to scholars of several disciplines.
Art Abstracts A Comprehensive Resource for Art Information featuring indexing and abstracts from an international array of publications, this database is a comprehensive resource covering fine, decorative and commercial art, as well as photography, folk art, film, architecture and much more. Over 600 periodicals dating back to 1984, including 280 peer-reviewed journals Indexing and abstracts of over 13,000 art dissertations Indexing of almost 200,000 art reproductions. Time span: 1984-present.
ARTbibliographies Modern (ABM) Premier source of information on modern and contemporary arts dating from the late 19th century onwards, and including photography. Includes citations and abstracts to English and foreign-language journal articles, books, exhibition catalogs, dissertations, and reviews of books and exhibitions. Covers all aspects of modern and contemporary art from the late 19th century to the present including painting, drawing, sculpture, graphic arts, photography, performance and installation art, computer and electronic art, conservation and crafts. 1974 to the present, with some entries dating to the late 1960s.
Art Full Text Researchers are able to track the careers of artists and review their materials and methods, and can find books by and about artists, as well as interviews, profiles and much more. Indexing of nearly 200,000 art reproductions provides examples of styles and art movements, including works by emerging artists. It also includes indexing of over 13,000 dissertations. Full-text articles from more than 300 periodicals dating back to 1995; High-quality indexing and abstracts for over 600 periodicals dating as far back as 1984, including 280 peer-reviewed journals; Indexing and abstracts for over 13,000 art dissertations; Indexing of nearly 200,000 art reproductions; A database-specific thesaurus.
HeinOnline Foreign and International Law Resources In-depth coverage of publications from the American Society of International Law and the prominent Yearbooks from around the world, as well as the Hague Permanent Court of International Justice series and the publications of dozens of other highly-respected publishers. Part 1 includes international yearbooks and serials, Part 2 contains U.S. Law Digests, Part 3 consists of international tribunals and judicial decisions and Part 4 includes other significant works relating to foreign and international law.
HeinOnline Law Journal Library Full-text images of over 1,100 journals back to issue 1 of volume 1 of the each title. The goal of the Hein company is eventually to scan every law review title ever published. To see the current holdings of HeinOnline, click the "Collection Index" link on the top left-hand side of the screen.
Westlaw Campus Research Westlaw Campus Research is a collection of thousands of law, news, and business publications Law: The heart of Westlaw Campus Research is the full text of all federal and state U.S. cases. The collection also includes other legal primary sources and many secondary sources, including over 800 law reviews and journals. News: The collection contains the full text of hundreds of newspapers, newswires, newsletters, broadcast transcripts, magazines, and trade journals from the US and around the globe. Business: The collection contains company information from a variety of sources, including Westlaw’s Company Investigator system.
<< Previous: Finding Books
Next: Bibliographies, Dictionaries, and Encyclopedias >>
Last Updated: Aug 7, 2024 4:04 PM
URL: https://lib.guides.umd.edu/aclmclass

Feature Article

Point of View: How should novelty be valued in science?

Washington University School of Medicine, United States ;
Open access
Copyright information
Comment Open annotations (there are currently 0 annotations on this page).
11,231 views
1,037 downloads
34 citations

Share this article

Cite this article.

Barak A Cohen
Copy to clipboard
Download BibTeX
Download .RIS

Introduction

Lessons from the philosophy of science, lessons from the sociology of science, conclusions, decision letter, author response, article and author information.

Scientists are under increasing pressure to do "novel" research. Here I explore whether there are risks to overemphasizing novelty when deciding what constitutes good science. I review studies from the philosophy of science to help understand how important an explicit emphasis on novelty might be for scientific progress. I also review studies from the sociology of science to anticipate how emphasizing novelty might impact the structure and function of the scientific community. I conclude that placing too much value on novelty could have counterproductive effects on both the rate of progress in science and the organization of the scientific community. I finish by recommending that our current emphasis on novelty be replaced by a renewed emphasis on predictive power as a characteristic of good science.

“(T)he primary novelty of this work is the ability to make a prediction about drug sensitivity. Reviewers felt that the predictive ability would be very hard to generalize, however, reducing the impact of this novel feature. This concern about novelty … was the driving factor in this decision.”

-excerpt from a rejection letter received by the author

A mere 48 years separates the discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA ( Watson and Crick, 1953 ) from the announcements that the human genome had been sequenced ( Lander et al., 2001 ; Venter et al., 2001 ). The pace and regularity with which important discoveries have been made in molecular biology is remarkable. Molecular biologists have had an uncanny knack of homing in on the small irregularities that lead to large breakthroughs. It was irregularly colored ears of corn that revealed the existence of mobile genetic elements known as transposons ( McClintock, 1950 ). Many of the most important regulators of human development first surfaced as mutations that slightly alter the rows of bristles on the undersides of fruit fly larvae ( Nüsslein-Volhard and Wieschaus, 1980 ). Scientists studying tiny roundworms that age in odd ways helped uncover micro RNAs ( Lee et al., 1993 ; Wightman et al., 1993 ), which are now thought to regulate a large fraction of human genes. Again and again molecular biologists have seized on these sorts of minutiae to gain enormous insight into the inner workings of cells. Looking back over the last 60 years one feels a great sense of pride in being part of a tradition that is undoubtedly one of the most productive in the history of science.

Given the winning formula molecular biologists appear to have hit on, it is interesting that there are large changes occurring in our community. As the size of the molecular biology community continues to grow, competition for limited funding has become much more intense. With the completion of the human genome has come immense pressure to “translate” basic research findings into new treatments for disease. In the United States our institutional leaders at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) openly worry about data showing that the rate of discovery in the biomedical sciences no longer reflects the size of their investments ( Cook et al., 2015 ; Fortin and Currie, 2013 ; Gallo et al., 2014 ; Lauer et al., 2015 ; Doyle et al., 2015 ). Undoubtedly these pressures influence the trajectories of research programs. What we do not know yet is how these pressures impact the overall productivity of our community.

One manifestation of these changes is an increasing emphasis on “novelty” in science. Our scientific establishment – through our funding agencies, review panels and editorial boards – are clearly putting a higher and higher premium on research that is deemed novel. Research programs that lack a “high degree” of novelty struggle for support and “incremental” findings are relegated to publication in second- and third-tier journals. NIH grant proposals now have an “Innovation” section where investigators must explicitly list the attributes of their research that make it novel. While funding agencies seek novelty in their grant portfolios, they are also increasingly looking for "feasibility" as resources become scarce, and this appears to put novel research programs at a disadvantage ( Alberts et al., 2014 ). As investigators struggle to walk a nearly impossible line between feasibility and novelty, the definition of novelty itself becomes blurred. Novelty can now mean anything from demonstrating a well-established phenomenon in a new system to testing a hypothesis with no precedent in the literature. Even though we cannot strictly define what is and is not novel, the message is still clear; novelty equates with good research.

Perhaps this emphasis on novelty is not really new at all, but only a codifying of something we already value implicitly. Even so, we should consider the effects that an explicit emphasis on novelty might have on the properties of scientific research that have made molecular biology so successful. These properties include our system of peer review, our scientific standards of proof and falsification, and the organization of the scientific community. Increasing the value we place on novelty will likely affect each of these factors.

For working scientists Karl Popper is almost certainly the most influential philosopher of science. Most of us at least pay lip service to Popper’s philosophy when we recite the mantra that hypotheses can never be proved, only disproved. For many scientists the distinction between what is disprovable and what is not demarcates the line between what is and is not science, an idea taken directly from Popper’s writings. According to Popper, scientists propose new hypotheses about how the world works, and any hypotheses that are subsequently falsified by empirical observation are relegated to the scrap heap ( Popper, 1963 ). This framework of hypothesis generation and refutation is widely accepted by scientists.

What is less well appreciated is how utterly Popper rejected the notion of confirmation. Popper was adamant that the survival of a hypothesis in the face of empirical challenge says nothing about its validity, only that that the hypothesis has yet to be falsified. However, Popper’s strict adherence to this idea became difficult to defend and, to be practical, most scientists do allow that empirical evidence can either support or falsify a hypothesis.

What if anything can we infer about the value of novelty from Popper's ideas on hypotheses and falsification? Because Popper believed that hypotheses can never be proved, he stressed that hypotheses must be subjected to repeated testing, even after they have survived several empirical challenges. In this sense he valued follow-through over novelty. However, because Popper believed that “good tests kill flawed theories”, new tests must be more than trivial variations of previous experiments. The philosopher Imre Lakatos argued that good research programs are "progressive" ( Lakatos, 1970 ), and that scientists should constantly seek to expand their hypotheses into new areas of observation. Today, however, review panels are likely to tag progressive research programs as lacking in novelty because the scientists who pursue these programs seek to expand old hypotheses into new realms, rather than develop new hypotheses altogether. This is misguided. Scientists following progressive research programs require ingenuity and creativity to devise the tests that expand the reach of their hypotheses beyond the obvious. According to Popper the novelty of a new hypothesis is beside the point, unless and until the hypothesis it is meant to replace is falsified.

It appears then that nothing in the ideas of Popper or Kuhn particularly values novelty for its own sake.

Thomas Kuhn, a contemporary of Popper, was in many ways Popper’s opposite. Kuhn emphasized the importance of “paradigms”, coherent collections of claims, methodologies, and teaching practices that govern scientific inquiry. In his hugely influential book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions he explains that the purpose of a paradigm is to provide a guide for investigating the right questions ( Kuhn and Hacking, 2012 ). Here Kuhn’s philosophy sharply contrasts with Popper’s. While Popper advocated abandoning a theory the moment it was falsified, Kuhn emphasized that paradigms can tolerate a good deal of “anomalies” and still remain valid. The flexibility of paradigms allows scientists to continue working in a productive framework long after falsification would have dictated a change. If scientists had to drop their paradigms every time they encountered a problem then nothing would ever get done. Only a critical mass of anomalies requires a “paradigm shift”.

It appears then that nothing in the ideas of Popper or Kuhn particularly values novelty for its own sake. Both Popper and Kuhn emphasized the need for scientists to stick doggedly with their hypotheses, Popper because hypotheses must be challenged continually no matter how often they have been confirmed, and Kuhn because only a critical mass of anomalies can force a paradigm shift. Ironically, over time the effect of Kuhn's book has been to weaken scientists’ belief in their paradigms. Many investigators now actively search for paradigm shifts. This conflicts with Kuhn’s description of progress in which scientists cling tightly to their paradigms, giving them up only grudgingly after the weight of anomalous results renders the paradigm unsupportable. Despite their differences, novelty seeking is not a key component in the philosophies of either Popper or Kuhn.

Many scientists have a visceral reaction to philosophies that cast them as mechanically pursuing their hypotheses. Kuhn in particular was attacked for seeming to endorse a grinding and boring type of science, and he did not help his case by referring to work done in the context of a paradigm as “normal” science.

But we need not explicitly value novelty to keep science from being a dull grind. Peter Godfrey-Smith writes that Popper painted an appealing picture of scientists as “hard-headed cowboys, out on the range, with a Stradivarius tucked in their saddlebags” ( Godfrey-Smith, 2003 ). Hard-headed because they must have the determination to stick with their hypotheses, and packing a Stradivarius because they need inspiration when devising tests that expand their hypotheses into new realms. Kuhn too seemed in awe of the ability of normal science to hone in on “miniscule” findings that end up revealing deep truths about the world. Think of the little tails on the electron micrographs of the RNA:DNA hybrids that revealed the phenomenon of intron splicing ( Berget et al., 1977 ), or the examples given at the start of this article. While normal science might seem a derogatory term for what most investigators do, Kuhn saw it as requiring imagination.

Even still, as working scientists we know that much of day-to-day science involves painstaking and often repetitive work. Science succeeds because powerful social incentives help us push through the less glamorous aspects of research. Godfrey-Smith writes that the most significant reactions to the philosophies of both Popper and Kuhn emphasized the importance of social forces in science. For example, in his later writings Popper struggled with the question of exactly when an observation counts as a refutation. His solution was to shift from describing the proper methodologies of science to describing the proper social behavior of scientists. For Kuhn, paradigms highlighted the importance of the social aspects of science, including the indoctrination of students and the collective adherence to particular claims among investigators working under the same paradigm. In the next section I discuss how the increasing emphasis on novelty might influence the social structure of science.

An important question for sociologists of science – and also for scientists and funding agencies – is: What distribution of people across rival research programs is best for science? The immediate impact of emphasizing novelty might be to distribute researchers over the widest possible range of research programs, as each investigator seeks to maximize the novelty of their own research program. This might seem an efficient way of exploring the widest possible range of theories but such a distribution also raises problems. Kuhn wrote extensively of the necessity of having large groups of researchers organized around a particular set of theories. Placing too much emphasis on novelty may result in a distribution of effort that is too diffuse to enable efficient progress. But scientists consider an array of incentives besides novelty when choosing their research programs.

Robert Merton laid the foundations of the sociology of science with his discussion of reward systems in science ( Merton, 1957 ). Merton argued that recognition is the main form of reward in science. In particular the “priority rule”, which awards the most recognition to the first investigator to support a hypothesis, is an especially powerful incentive in science. To support his idea Merton showed that the history of science is chock full of disputes over priority (for example, Isaac Newton battled Gottfried Leibniz over priority for the invention of calculus ( Hall, 1980 )). One benefit of an incentive system that rewards priority is that it encourages original thought and novel lines of investigation. One might argue that this means that novelty seeking is already baked directly into the social fabric of science.

Hull viewed the success of science as a result of a delicate balance between competition and cooperation, creativity and skepticism, trust and doubt, and open-mindedness and dogmatism. Placing too much emphasis on novelty could upset this equilibrium in ways that are not optimal for scientific progress.

Some sociologists argue that the priority incentive coupled with the individual quest for credit is what produces good outcomes in the scientific community. These authors envision something like the “invisible hand” that guides free market capitalism in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations ( Smith, 2000 ). Scientists must balance risk versus reward when choosing between competing hypotheses to explore. The priority incentive prevents all investigators from working on the hypothesis with the highest probability of success. The argument is that credit is a pie of fixed size that can be shared either equally ( Kitcher, 1990 ) or unequally ( Strevens, 2003 ), but only by investigators who work on the winning hypothesis. When too many scientists work on the same hypothesis there is an incentive to work on novel hypotheses, even ones where the chance of success might be smaller, but where the share of credit would be larger ( Laudan, 1977 ). In this way the priority rule balances cooperation and competition between scientists, and divides individual effort between different research programs.

David Hull argued that science is particularly good at portioning effort in a way that maximizes good outcomes for the community ( Hull, 1988 ). Hull agreed with Merton that the priority rule helps to maintain a balance between cooperation and competition in science. However, he also recognized the importance of the rivalries between scientists that encourage investigators to check the validity of their competitors’ work, especially results they may want to use in their own research. This checking, along with the priority rule, helps to maintain a balance between creativity and skepticism, which Hull believed was an essential feature of science. Scientists can become overly attached to their ideas, and most are reluctant to kill their pet theories, especially theories with creative panache. To counterbalance this tendency science relies on the incentive rival scientists have to vigorously check work that may be useful to them, or results that challenge their own dogma.

Hull might have been wary about introducing an explicit incentive for novelty into the scientific community. For one thing, along with most other sociologists of science, he thought that the priority incentive already provided a powerful motivation for scientists to test novel theories. But more than others Hull viewed the success of science as a result of a delicate balance between competition and cooperation, creativity and skepticism, trust and doubt, and open-mindedness and dogmatism. Placing too much emphasis on novelty could upset this equilibrium in ways that are not optimal for scientific progress.

In particular, an explicit emphasis on novelty might perturb the balance between the incentive for scientists to check their rivals’ theories and the priority rule. The priority rule provides a powerful incentive for scientists to publish their work quickly. This is good for the community because new ideas get disseminated rapidly, where they can be incorporated into other research programs. However, there is an equally powerful incentive to be correct when publishing because scientists know that other investigators who want to build on their results are likely to uncover any mistakes that make it into print. If we value novelty too much then scientists will be incentivized to publish too quickly, without imposing the rigor they might normally demand of themselves. Progress would slow to a crawl as other scientists waste time trying to build on flawed results.

Indeed, some in the scientific establishment have already warned of a “crisis in reproducibility” ( Errington et al., 2014 ; Baker, 2016 ). Not surprisingly this crisis follows an explosion in papers reporting weak claims of novelty ( Henikoff and Levis, 1991 ; Friedman and Karlsson, 1997 ). Others have argued that the reward system in modern molecular biology incentivizes statistically underpowered research designs ( Higginson and Munafò, 2016 ). To counteract this trend some of the leaders in our field now advocate funding centralized efforts to validate published studies ( Collins and Tabak, 2014 ). This suggests that priority and checking have become unbalanced in the general scientific community. Those leaders advocating for centralized checking efforts might do well to ask themselves what role their emphasis on novelty has played in precipitating this so-called crisis.

Another consequence of emphasizing novelty might be to increase the tenacity with which scientists attack their rivals’ hypotheses. Novel results are particularly likely to be attacked, in part because scientists who can lay claim to novelty enjoy so many advantages over other scientists. Rival scientists are thus incentivized to use anomalous results to discredit novel hypotheses. This is unfortunate because as Kuhn emphasized, hypotheses must be allowed to tolerate some anomalous results before they are discarded, otherwise the community cannot exploit the utility of working models. Ironically, novel research programs have a very difficult time surviving when novelty is so highly coveted.

Perhaps our obsession with novelty is a sort of communal nostalgia for the good old days, when important foundational discoveries came fast and furious.

An emphasis on novelty could also break the cohesion between scientists working within research programs. Cooperation is essential to scientific progress, and this cooperation is balanced by competition from investigators who are willing to challenge rival theories. If scientists must maximize the novelty of their research then they are more likely to pursue avenues as different as possible from their colleagues. We risk producing a community in which no single paradigm has the critical mass of supporters required to function effectively. This is a serious problem because current paradigms, imperfect though they might be, often have great utility, even though they may eventually be revised or even discarded.

When an area of science experiences rapid advancement over a short interval of time it may be followed by a period in which novel discoveries are harder to come by. After Mendeleyev articulated the concept of the periodic table there was an exciting period in which novel elements were rapidly discovered. As time passed it became more and more difficult to isolate the remaining elements. Perhaps molecular biology is also in a lull after a period of virtually unprecedented achievement. Almost 50 years ago Gunther Stent argued that there were no new principles left to discover in molecular biology ( Stent, 1969 ). All that scientists could look forward to would be the tedious grind of filling in details. These sorts of pronouncements have a way of being undone by events. For example, Stent’s prediction came before the discovery of splicing, reverse transcription, and micro RNAs. Even so, it may well be true that most of the foundational principles of molecular biology have already been discovered. Perhaps our obsession with novelty is a sort of communal nostalgia for the good old days, when important foundational discoveries came fast and furious.

It might also be that our desire to reward novelty stems from the frustration that research in molecular biology is not “translating” into new practical applications as fast as some might wish. The endless overpromising of novel therapeutics from our institutional leaders only makes this matter worse. Why don’t discoveries in molecular biology translate more quickly into practical applications? Is it because we are missing large chunks of basic theory? Probably not, and those who go searching for novelty and paradigm shifts are likely to be disappointed.

Instead, we face a very different set of problems. While our models are generally quite good at explaining the basic mechanisms underlying molecular biology, it is also the case that most of our models lack a quantitative formulation. Even when we know the underlying molecular mechanisms at work in a given system or process, in most cases we lack the ability to make quantitative predictions about the effects that specific perturbations will have on that system or process. We have a mountain of facts about how transcription initiates and beautiful cartoon models of this process, but we cannot predict the effects that genetic variants will have on transcription rates, whether these variants reside in cis -acting DNA sequences or in trans -acting protein factors. We know the identities of virtually all the proteins involved in apoptosis, and which of their post-translational modifications are pro- or anti-apoptotic. Yet we cannot use quantitative measures of the levels of these proteins in any cell type to make an accurate prediction of whether that cell will die or not. We understand the principles that drive peptide sequences to fold into secondary and tertiary structures, yet we cannot predict the shape any given amino acid sequence will adopt. Seen through the lens of predictive power, it is clear that the vast majority of models in molecular biology are inadequate for solving real world problems.

If we want to solve important practical problems then progressive research programs that expand and refine the predictive power of existing models are at least as important as research programs focused on novel hypotheses. One suggestion would be to replace the current emphasis on novelty with an emphasis on predictive power, particularly quantitative predictions. Research that results in models that reliably and quantitatively predict the outcomes of genetic, biochemical, or pharmacological perturbations should be valued highly, and rewarded, regardless of whether such models invoke novel phenomena.

The increasing emphasis placed on novelty brings significant dangers. As it becomes more and more important for scientists to be “the first to demonstrate” some claim, the influence of the priority rule will increase and more scientists will feel pressure to sacrifice rigor for speed of publication. We are also likely to see an increase in distasteful disputes over priority. The cohesion between competing groups may also be in jeopardy as the drive for novelty distorts the balance between competition and cooperation that has characterized the success of molecular biology over the past several decades.

Science as we practice it today is a relatively recent development. Our system of peer review, the priority rule, and the organization of scientists into cooperative social demes that compete against other groups of scientists all trace their origin to decisions made by the Royal Society in the late 1600s. For most of history humans acquired knowledge outside of what we would recognize as a scientific framework. It would be unwise to assume that science is a permanent feature of our society or that it can withstand deep structural changes and remain an efficient engine of discovery. The explicit value we now place on novelty in molecular biology is a change we should approach with caution if we are to safeguard the essential features of science that have made our field so successful.

Kirschner MW
Google Scholar
Eyre-Walker A
Bodenstein YA
Errington TM
Friedman SH
Karlsson JO
Carpenter AS
McPartland CD
Thompson LA
Godfrey-Smith P
Higginson AD
Stange-Thomann Y
Stojanovic N
Subramanian A
Ainscough R
Mullikin JC
Shownkeen R
Waterston RH
McPherson JD
Chinwalla AT
Delehaunty KD
Delehaunty A
Branscomb E
Richardson P
Uberbacher E
Sodergren EJ
Kucherlapati RS
Weinstock GM
Weissenbach J
Artiguenave F
Pelletier E
Doucette-Stamm L
Rubenfield M
Weinstock K
Rosenthal A
Nyakatura G
Federspiel NA
Minoshima S
Athanasiou M
Reinhardt R
McCombie WR
de la Bastide M
Hornischer K
Batzoglou S
Hayashizaki Y
Hermjakob H
McLysaght A
Mikkelsen T
Szustakowki J
Thierry-Mieg D
Thierry-Mieg J
Felsenfeld A
Wetterstrand KA
Catanese JJ
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium
Feinbaum RL
McClintock B
Nüsslein-Volhard C
Wieschaus E
Amanatides P
Subramanian G
Gabor Miklos GL
McKusick VA
Hunkapiller M
Hannenhalli S
Remington K
Abu-Threideh J
Chandramouliswaran I
Chaturvedi K
Di Francesco V
Evangelista C
Gabrielian AE
Merkulov GV
Baumhueter S
Barnstead M
Davenport L
Gluecksmann A
Pfannkoch C
Rodriguez R
Smallwood M
Winn-Deen E
Campbell MJ
Sjolander KV
Kejariwal A
Narechania A
Muruganujan A
Baxendale J
Carnes-Stine J
Dombroski M
Glanowski S
Henderson S
Stockwell T
Peter Rodgers Reviewing Editor; eLife, United Kingdom

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "How should novelty be valued in science?" to eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. Your manuscript has been reviewed by two peer reviewers and the eLife Features Editor (Peter Rodgers). The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Yitzhak Pilpel (Reviewer #1) and Angela H DePace (Reviewer #2).

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Features Editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission. Most of the major revisions requested are optional (we feel the article would be improved if you addressed them, but it is not essential that you do).

The paper is an impressive scholarly work. It is broad, deep and methodological. It is very well written (though perhaps could be shortened). It studies the value of novelty in science through several angles, including philosophy of science (the excellent survey and comparison of Popper's vs. Kuhn's teachings as well as other less well-known thinkers is used here very effectively to deliver the notion that both falsification as well as paradigm establishment and shifting require more than purely "novelty-science"); it considers very effectively social and cultural aspects of science (the role of fame and recognition in the process, competition etc.); it touches upon the emotional aspects of doing science, and it very effectively also touches upon science organization and policy aspects such as in funding and granting of research projects (where the call for funding, not only individualistic research is refreshing and, in a way novel, in the current atmosphere).

Major revisions:

1) The solution presented at the end (to focus on quantitative prediction as a gauge of novelty) is only one of many possible solutions, and it would be good if the author could discuss other possible solutions, although we should not insist on this.

I would argue that another solution would be including some description of the sociology of science in graduate and undergraduate education, such that the value of novelty and reproducibility/extension at the community level are more clear to people. Right now we almost exclusively lift up isolated geniuses as scientific heroes; is it no wonder that everyone chases some paradigm shift of their own? I'm sure there are other solutions as well.

2) A common complaint I hear is that the competitive nature of modern science means that authors often over-sell their findings in papers in order make them seem more novel than they really are. Again, it would be good if the author could briefly discuss this phenomenon.

3) In addition to the relationship between novelty and philosophical and sociological factors it would be good to discuss how competition for funding and jobs seems to be reducing novelty – as outlined, for example, in the following passage from Alberts et al. 2014. Rescuing US Biomedical Research from its Systemic Flaws. PNAS 111:5773-5777:

"Competition in pursuit of experimental objectives has always been a part of the scientific enterprise, and it can have positive effects. However, hypercompetition for the resources and positions that are required to conduct science suppresses the creativity, cooperation, risk-taking, and original thinking required to make fundamental discoveries.

Now that the percentage of NIH grant applications that can be funded has fallen from around 30% into the low teens, biomedical scientists are spending far too much of their time writing and revising grant applications and far too little thinking about science and conducting experiments. The low success rates have induced conservative, short-term thinking in applicants, reviewers, and funders. The system now favors those who can guarantee results rather than those with potentially path-breaking ideas that, by definition, cannot promise success. Young investigators are discouraged from departing too far from their postdoctoral work, when they should instead be posing new questions and inventing new approaches. Seasoned investigators are inclined to stick to their tried-and-true formulas for success rather than explore new fields.

One manifestation of this shift to short-term thinking is the inflated value that is now accorded to studies that claim a close link to medical practice […]".

It would be good to discuss these matters (in just a paragraph or two) in part 1 or part 4 of the article, but this is not essential.

4) I would consider swapping the order of sections 2 and 3. Section 3 is the stronger of the two, in my opinion, and describes one ideal version of how the scientific community functions that many of us are familiar with, at least in the abstract. It thus may serve as more of a common starting point. (Although it may be worth noting that some aspects of this ideal might not serve us well either. For example it is highly individualistic and competitive in its framing; the same goals of novelty seeking and cross-checking might be achieved by other more collaborative social structures). The segue to section 2 can then be that novelty-seeking is a requirement of the social structure described in the previous section, as is independently validating or extending results in new areas. Both of these activities can be accommodated in the philosophical frameworks presented, but there is a clear second-tier status assigned to validating or extending results in some of them. Thus the dominant influence of Kuhn's work can be seen to be somewhat destructive in the overall goals of science. (Everyone constantly seeking poorly-defined paradigm shifts isn't necessarily productive).

As directed in the decision letter I have addressed some, but not all, of the major points as the letter indicated that addressing these points was optional.

This point is addressed in the ninth paragraph of the section “Lessons from the sociology of science”. I cite to papers documenting the exponential rise in claims to novelty.

I now address this point in the Introduction (fourth paragraph) and cite the Alberts et al. (2014) paper.

Author details

Contribution, for correspondence, competing interests.

Acknowledgements

I thank Rob Mitra, Mark Johnston, Siqi Zhao, Max Staller, Michael White, Zach Pincus, and Dana King for critical readings of the manuscripts and engaging discussions.

Publication history

Received: May 17, 2017
Accepted: July 11, 2017
Version of Record published: July 25, 2017 (version 1)

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

Downloads (link to download the article as pdf).

Article PDF

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools), categories and tags.

philosophy of science
sociology of science
peer review
science policy
scientific publishing
Discussed in

Is novelty overrated? Listen to Barak Cohen discuss the pressure on scientists to do “novel” research.

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

Quick Links
Make An Appointment
Our Services
Price Estimate
Price Transparency
Pay Your Bill
Patient Experience
Careers at UH

Schedule an appointment today

Diabetes & Endocrinology
UH CEO Dr. Cliff Megerian's Blog
Emergency Medicine
Gastroenterology & GI Surgery
Geriatric Medicine
Heart & Vascular
Integrative Health Network
Neurology & Neurological Surgery
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Orthopaedics
Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Pulmonology, Critical Care & Sleep Medicine
Rheumatology
Roe Green Center for Travel Medicine & Global Health
UH Clinical Leaders Blog
UH Drusinsky Sports Medicine Institute
Medical Articles
Medical Education
Pediatric Orthopaedic Update
UH Alumni Association e-Newsletter
UH Clinical Update
UH CMC Update
UH Innovations
UH OBGYN Clinical Update
UH Pediatric Clinical Update
UH Research & Education Update

Multicenter Research Team Discovers Novel Method to Test for Oral Cancer

August 06, 2024

By Rod Rezaee, MD , Aaron Weinberg, DMD, PhD, CWRUSOD , and UH

Innovations in Ear, Nose & Throat | Summer 2024

The University Hospitals Ear, Nose & Throat Institute is collaborating with Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine on a noninvasive, low-cost test to detect oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and monitor precancerous lesions.

Additional sites include the University of Cincinnati Medical Center and West Virginia University School of Dentistry. Cell Reports Medicine published the team’s findings in March 2024.

Co-Principal Investigator Aaron Weinberg, DMD, PhD , explains the discovery that led to the novel testing platform: “We observed that changes in the ratio between two proteins, human beta-defensin 3 and 2 [hBD-3 and hBD-2], accompanied the carcinoma in situ phenotype. In the early stages of tumorigenesis, hBD-3 is overexpressed compared to hBD-2.”

Scrapings of lesion cells were collected from consenting patients and compared to contralateral normal cells using a scoring tool called the beta-defensin index (BDI). The blinded validation study demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 98 percent and 83 percent.

A Newly Discovered Protein Duality

An antimicrobial peptide expressed in epithelial cells, hBD-3 contributes to a healthy immune response and wound healing. “If we burn our tongue or bite our cheek, this particular protein protects the wound from microbial challenges and stimulates the proliferation of epithelial cells to close it,” says Dr. Weinberg, Chair and Professor of the Department of Biological Sciences at the School of Dental Medicine and a member of the Population and Cancer Prevention Program at Case Comprehensive Cancer Center. “However, we have shown that hBD-3 also promotes tumor growth where the mechanism for epithelial cell proliferation gets hijacked, revealing a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde duality.”

An immunofluorescent picture of a normal tongue compared with stage two tongue cancer. The healthy tongue tissue (A – or left) is stained red by a fluorescent antibody to hBD-2 (the good protein). The cancerous tongue tissue (B – or right) stained green because of overexpression of the protein indicating cancer (fluorescent antibody to hBD-3).

The current gold standard test for a suspicious mouth lesion is biopsy, but “greater than 95 percent of biopsy results are negative,” Dr. Weinberg says. “Imagine if we had a tool to assist the clinician in determining who needs more invasive testing?” In addition to sparing patients an uncomfortable procedure, there is tremendous potential for better resource utilization. The cost for the test is a few dollars, compared higher costs for traditional biopsy and pathology review.

Meeting a Clinical Need

OSCC accounts for approximately 90 percent of malignant tumors of the head and neck. Often associated with lifestyle factors, including tobacco, alcohol and betel nut overconsumption, OSCC lesions develop in the mucosal surfaces of the oral cavity and can be difficult to diagnose accurately. Early detection of oral cancer is associated with less invasive treatment and higher survival.

“Effective screening needs to be cost-effective and reliable,” says Co-Principal Investigator Rod Rezaee, MD , Director of Head and Neck Surgical Oncology and Reconstruction at the UH ENT Institute, Co-Director of the Head and Neck Oncology Disease Team at University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Professor of Otolaryngology at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine . “Dr. Weinberg’s project is moving us toward a tool that is able to be disseminated not just locally but nationally and internationally.”

Expanding to a Global Population

The team recently submitted a multimillion-dollar grant to the National Cancer Institute to conduct a large and demographically diverse study, including three U.S. sites and one in the United Kingdom.

“Expanding our patient base will permit us to validate the early detection platform with a much larger population, many of whom have unique risk factors,” Dr. Weinberg says. “We are collaborating with Queen Mary’s Hospital in East London, where there are many refugees from countries where smoking and betel nut practice is widespread.”

The seed of the areca catechu tree, betel nut contains a psychoactive compound called arecoline that has been used for centuries as a stimulant. Arecoline is a member of the nicotine family, and people who use it chronically often develop lesions in their oral cavity.

“It is a major problem in India, where oral cancer is the number one cancer in men and number three in women,” Dr. Weinberg says. “We hope this test will be beneficial in parts of the world where pathology review may be less accessible and/or imprecise.”

Researchers are working to develop a point-of-care device that will provide accurate results at chairside. “We are collaborating with biomedical engineers here at CWRU to generate a prototype that will be analytically tested,” Dr. Weinberg says. “Instead of a 16- to 24-hour turnaround, clinicians could share results with patients in 15 to 30 minutes.”

Dr. Weinberg and the team also are studying the potential translation to other types of squamous cell carcinomas.

“Discovery on this level only works when everyone shares in the mission, and this project is emblematic of that,” Dr. Rezaee says. “Before I became involved, Dr. Chad Zender worked with Dr. Weinberg in a longstanding, collaborative partnership prior to his transition to UC Health in Cincinnati. We have continued that partnership with UC, facilitating the multi-institutional nature of the project. Ultimately, our collective goal is to make it easier for people to have access to this screening tool and improve patient outcomes.”

For more information, contact Dr. Weinberg at 216-368-6729 or Dr. Rezaee at 216-998-4427 .

Contributing Experts: Aaron Weinberg, DMD, PhD Chair and Professor Department of Biological Sciences Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine Professor Department of Otolaryngology Department of Pathology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine Member, Population and Cancer Prevention Program Case Comprehensive Cancer Center

Rod Rezaee, MD Director, Head and Neck Surgical Oncology and Reconstruction University Hospitals ENT Institute Co-Director, Head and Neck Oncology Disease Team University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center Professor of Otolaryngology Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

Tags: Innovations in Ear Nose Throat Summer 2024 , Oral cancer , Oropharyngeal Cancer , Discovery

Green Chemistry

Visible light-induced cobalt-catalyzed 1,3-diphosphination of alkenes.

1,3-Difunctionalization of alkenes, as a novel way for the modern development of alkene transformations, has drawn significant research attention in recent years. Herein, we disclose a novel cobalt-catalyzed radical 1,3-diphosphination of alkenes, which enables straightforward access 1,3-diphosphine skeleton compounds under mild conditions without additional oxidants and photosensitizers. This transformation features excellent functional group tolerance, operational simplicity, high atom economy, and is amenable for late-stage functionalization of complex molecule skeletons. Preliminary bioactivity studies reveal that these valuable 1,3-diphosphine products show potential antitumor activity.

Supplementary files

Supplementary information PDF (10122K)

Article information

Download citation, permissions.

W. Shan, Z. Wang, C. Gao, X. Li, W. Zhuang, R. Liu, C. Shi, H. Qin, X. Li and D. Shi, Green Chem. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4GC02737J

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page .

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

University of South Florida

Main Navigation

Health news, fda approves new parkinson’s treatment based on clinical trial led by usf health faculty.

August 8, 2024

Morsani College of Medicine , Research

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved on Aug. 7 a new medication that lasts longer and requires fewer doses for treating Parkinson’s Disease, potentially offering patients significant relief from the disease’s debilitating symptoms.

The FDA’s approval is based in part on findings of a study led by Robert A. Hauser, MD, MBA, professor in the Department of Neurology and director of the USF Health Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center at the USF Health Morsani College of Medicine.

Dr. Hauser was principal investigator for the multisite randomized, double-blind clinical trial that included 105 academic and clinical centers in the United States and Europe. He and colleagues published the findings last summer in JAMA Neurology . At the core of the findings is a novel method of boosting decreased dopamine levels with an extended-release formulation of an existing medication – carbidopa-levodopa – that can provide patients with longer “on” time between doses, so they are less likely to experience the return of slowness, stiffness and tremors, among other symptoms.

The new formulation is an oral formulation of carbidopa/levodopa (CD/LD) that combines both immediate-release (IR) granules and extended-release (ER) pellets.

For more details on the study , please visit the USF Health News page here.

And for more details on the FDA approval, please visit here .

Return to article listing

About Health News

USF Health News highlights the great work of the faculty, staff and students across the four health colleges – Morsani College of Medicine, College of Public Health, College of Nursing and Taneja College of Pharmacy – and the multispecialty physicians group. USF Health, an integral part of the University of South Florida, integrates research, education and health care to reach our shared value - making life better.

Delayed publication of Heritage president's book reflects Project 2025 shell game

Media Matters has obtained a galley copy of Dawn's Early Light, which decries IVF, abortion, childlessness, and dog parks

Written by Madeline Peltz

Published 08/07/24 12:38 PM EDT

Citation From a Heritage video of a Donald Trump speech

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts’ book will be published after the November elections, according to a report from Real Clear Politics.

This comes after backlash against the Heritage-led initiative Project 2025 , which aims to provide policy and personnel to the next Republican presidential administration and is backed by an advisory board of more than 100 conservative groups. Project 2025 has deep ties to former President Donald Trump and his running mate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH). Vance wrote the foreword to the now-delayed Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America , calling Roberts’ ideas an “essential weapon” in the “fights that lay ahead.”

The effort to hide the ball is futile, as Media Matters has obtained a galley copy of the book .

A review found Roberts rails against birth control, in vitro fertilization, abortion, and dog parks. He says that having children should not be considered an “optional individual choice” but “a social expectation or a transcendent gift,” and describes “contraceptive technologies” as “revolutionary inventions that shape American culture away from abundance, marriage, and family.” He labels reproductive choice methods as a “snake strangling the American family.”

From page 63:

We need to understand what could be called contraceptive technologies—revolutionary inventions that shape American culture away from abundance, marriage, and family—in the same vein. They shift norms, incentives, and choices, often invisibly and involuntarily. Conservatives inveigh against no-fault divorce, the Sexual Revolution, and the destruction of a culture of hope without recognizing that these cultural changes are all downstream of technological ones.

“If you change a culture on a profound level, you can break the most basic functioning elements of civilization,” Roberts continues. “In the case of contraceptives, we are a society remade according to a research agenda set by the Party of Destruction."

Roberts also attacks in vitro fertilization. From page 64:

Once you understand this pattern (individual choice masking cultural upheaval), you will see it everywhere. In vitro fertilization (IVF) seems to assist fertility but has the added effect of incentivizing women to delay trying to start a family, often leading to added problems when the time comes.

Roberts blames contraception for a rise in abortion rates. Also from page 64:

As other kinds of contraceptive technologies spread, abortion rates went up, not down. Why? Because technological change made having a child seem like an optional and not natural result of having sex and destroyed a whole series of institutions and cultural norms that had protected women and forced men to take responsibility for their actions.

He condemns childlessness as well, recalling the broader political problem sparked by Vance’s unearthed comments attacking “childless cat ladies."

A culture of childlessness is, in the final analysis, a culture of despair. Getting married and having kids, on the other hand, gives you skin in the game for the future of your country. It forces you to grow up, give up childish things, and live in the real world. It grounds you, gives you a sense of purpose in life, and helps generate community, gratitude, and joy. A culture of children is a culture of hope.

On page 69, Roberts targets the Swampoodle dog park in Washington, D.C., for having too much room for dogs to play and not enough for children, blaming this on “the antifamily culture shaping legislation, regulation, and enforcement throughout our sprawling government."

The publication delay reflects a political crisis in the MAGA movement, as the worldview outlined by Roberts and Vance in Dawn’s Early Light has proven to be deeply unpopular with the public. Trump has attempted to distance himself from Heritage and Project 2025, especially after Kevin Roberts appeared on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast and declared that “we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."

But as the Trump campaign has deliberately refused to provide a detailed policy platform, instead putting forth only a barebones platform both on his campaign site and through the Republican National Committee , Project 2025 has effectively filled in the blanks of what a second Trump term might look like. The initiative includes a more than 900-page policy book titled Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise , which outlines extreme positions on virtually every major political issue and includes plans to restrict abortion access , eviscerate tools to fight climate change , and turn the Department of Justice into an unaccountable weapon for Trump to enact his retribution agenda against political enemies, among others. An analysis by CNN found “nearly 240 people with ties to both Project 2025 and to Trump,” and many of its authors and contributors worked directly in his administration.

Project 2025 has also recently attempted to downplay its own significance after years of aggrandizement . Trump administration alum Paul Dans recently resigned from his position as president of Project 2025, and now Roberts’ book is delayed. But it’s proving impossible to wash Project 2025’s stench off the campaign.

Roberts himself has admitted that the artificial attempt to shield Trump from Project 2025 backlash is disingenuous. “No hard feelings from any of us at Project 2025,” he told conservative radio host Vince Coglianese in July, “We understand Trump is the standard bearer and he's making a political tactical decision there.”

IMAGES

What is a Novel
Sample Literary Research Essay
(PDF) HOW TO PUBLISH A RESEARCH ARTICLE
How To Research For A Novel
Weather Report Muzaffarabad Pkp
Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals

COMMENTS

Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 ...
There are long-standing concerns that scientific institutions, which often rely on peer review to select the best projects, tend to select conservative ones and thereby discourage novel research. Using peer review data from 49 journals in the life and physical sciences, we examined whether less novel manuscripts were likelier to be accepted for ...
Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 ...
Using peer review data from 49 journals in the life and physical sciences, we examined whether less novel manuscripts were likelier to be accepted for publication. Measuring the novelty of manuscripts as atypical combinations of journals in their reference lists, we found no evidence of conservatism. Across journals, more novel manuscripts were ...
Full article: What is literature for? The role of transformative reading
Research for this article was supported by NOS-HS Grant "The Place of the Cognitive in Literary Studies" (327086). The grant also covered the expenses for open access publication. This work was prepared at the University of Oslo, under the auspices of the Literature, Cognition, and Emotions Group.
Most Read in Literature
Most Read in Literature. From Shakespeare's plays to modern literary trends, explore a collection of our most read recent articles and chapters from our literature portfolio. Enhance your knowledge with free access to these highlights from our books and journals until December 2022.
Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals
Abstract and Figures. There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ...
Scientific novelty and technological impact
Novel research is more likely to deliver scientific breakthroughs: pushing forward the frontier of scientific knowledge and opening the door to waves of follow-on research. However, novel research at the same times faces a higher level of uncertainty and is more likely to fail, as it explores uncharted waters. As novel research may require ...
Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 ...
Manuscripts exhibiting higher novelty were more highly cited. Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty. Keywords: bias; novelty; peer review; publishing.
How should novelty be valued in science?
Scientists are under increasing pressure to do "novel" research. Here I explore whether there are risks to overemphasizing novelty when deciding what constitutes good science. I review studies from the philosophy of science to help understand how important an explicit emphasis on novelty might be for scientific progress. I also review studies ...
Is Novel Research Worth Doing? Evidence from Journal Peer Review
Scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies often express desire for novel ideas, but there are long-standing concerns that in practice they favor conservative ones. Here, we examine the association between novelty and acceptance among 21,406 manuscripts submitted between 2013-2018 to one field-leading and one middle-tier life sciences journal. Measuring the novelty of ...
Language and Literature: Sage Journals
Language and Literature is an invaluable international peer-reviewed journal that covers the latest research in stylistics, defined as the study of style in literary and non-literary language. We publish theoretical, empirical and experimental research that aims to make a contribution to our understanding of style and its effects on readers.
Novel
About the Journal. Novel is the official journal of the Society for Novel Studies.. Novel is a peer-reviewed journal devoted to the best new criticism and theory in novel studies. The journal took up this mission in the days of formalism and has responded to the innovative moments in the field during the half-century that has elapsed since then—including ideology critique, feminist and ...
Novel Finding: Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy
Researchers at The New School in New York City have found evidence that literary fiction improves a reader's capacity to understand what others are thinking and feeling. Emanuele Castano, a ...
Is Novel Research Worth Doing? Evidence from Peer Review at 49 Journals
Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty. Keywords. Research; Journals and Magazines. Citation.
Novelty in Research: What It Is and How to Know Your Work is Original
The word 'novelty' comes from the Latin word 'novus,' which simply means new. Apart from new, the term is also associated with things, ideas or products for instance, that are original or unusual. Novelty in research refers to the introduction of a new idea or a unique perspective that adds to the existing knowledge in a particular ...
Book Review Fiction as Research Practice: Short Stories, Novellas, and
tories, Novellas, and Novels introduces the reader to fiction-based research. In the first section, Patricia Leavy explores the genre by explaining its background and possibiliti. s and goes on to describe how to conduct and evaluate fiction-based research. In the second section of the book, she presents and evaluates examples of fiction-based ...
Writing a literature review
Writing a literature review requires a range of skills to gather, sort, evaluate and summarise peer-reviewed published data into a relevant and informative unbiased narrative. Digital access to research papers, academic texts, review articles, reference databases and public data sets are all sources of information that are available to enrich ...
How to Research a Novel: Tips for Fiction Writing Research
Level Up Your Team. See why leading organizations rely on MasterClass for learning & development. Great stories tend to be rooted in some degree of real world events and conditions, and capturing these real world elements requires research. Learn the most effective way to conduct book research for your next novel or short story.
Approaching literature review for academic purposes: The Literature
A sophisticated literature review (LR) can result in a robust dissertation/thesis by scrutinizing the main problem examined by the academic study; anticipating research hypotheses, methods and results; and maintaining the interest of the audience in how the dissertation/thesis will provide solutions for the current gaps in a particular field.
(PDF) THE STUDY OF THE USE OF POPULAR NOVELS TO IMPROVE ...
It aligns with previous research, namely that novels provide many positive things regarding the English language. Authentic texts help students in terms of words, phrases, and expressions that are ...
26640 PDFs
Explore the latest full-text research PDFs, articles, conference papers, preprints and more on ENGLISH LITERATURE. Find methods information, sources, references or conduct a literature review on ...
Novelty in research: A common reason for manuscript rejection!
A thorough literature search is pivotal for designing a novel research project as it helps to understand known facts and gaps. An attempt at bridging identified research gaps adds to the novelty of the study. Another aspect of novel research is technological advancement. Most research starts from an idea, a thought, or an observation that ...
What Defines Novelty When it Comes to Research
The focus on getting novel articles published has taken over the in-depth analysis of research in peer review. A balanced approach is required in order to ensure that progress continues to be made in all fields, but that the work published is put through rigorous review processes to ensure replicability and legitimacy.
6 New Books We Recommend This Week
100 Best Books of the 21st Century: As voted on by 503 novelists, nonfiction writers, poets, critics and other book lovers — with a little help from the staff of The New York Times Book Review.
Research Guides: Art, Cinema, Law, Money Course Guide: Journals and
This guide is for Prof. Jason Kuo's Art, Cinema, Law, Money class -- it provides resources for navigating the library's resources and conducing research related to the course. This page provides advice on finding scholarly articles and links to journals and databases related to the Art, Cinema, Law, and Money film class.
Point of View: How should novelty be valued in science?
Merton, 1957 Hall, 1980. Hull viewed the success of science as a result of a delicate balance between competition and cooperation, creativity and skepticism, trust and doubt, and open-mindedness and dogmatism. Placing too much emphasis on novelty could upset this equilibrium in ways that are not optimal for scientific progress.
Multicenter Research Team Discovers Novel Method to Test for Oral
Co-Principal Investigator Aaron Weinberg, DMD, PhD, explains the discovery that led to the novel testing platform: "We observed that changes in the ratio between two proteins, human beta-defensin 3 and 2 [hBD-3 and hBD-2], accompanied the carcinoma in situ phenotype. In the early stages of tumorigenesis, hBD-3 is overexpressed compared to hBD ...
Visible Light-Induced Cobalt-Catalyzed 1,3-Diphosphination of Alkenes
1,3-Difunctionalization of alkenes, as a novel way for the modern development of alkene transformations, has drawn significant research attention in recent years. Herein, we disclose a novel cobalt-catalyzed radical 1,3-diphosphination of alkenes, which enables straightforward access 1,3-diphosphine skeleton
FDA approves new Parkinson's treatment based on clinical trial led by
About Health News. USF Health News highlights the great work of the faculty, staff and students across the four health colleges - Morsani College of Medicine, College of Public Health, College of Nursing and Taneja College of Pharmacy - and the multispecialty physicians group. USF Health, an integral part of the University of South Florida, integrates research, education and health care to ...
Delayed publication of Heritage president's book reflects Project 2025
Trump administration alum Paul Dans recently resigned from his position as president of Project 2025, and now Roberts' book is delayed. But it's proving impossible to wash Project 2025's ...