IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v16y2022i2s1751157722000347.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Luo, Zhuoran
  • Lu, Wei
  • He, Jiangen
  • Wang, Yuqi

Abstract

As critical building blocks of scientific research, research questions and research methods are put forward to reveal the nature of a publication's scientific novelty. Although existing studies have examined scientific novelty from multiple combination-based views, the temporal and semantic complexity of research questions and methods remains to be fully addressed. To remedy this, we introduce a new approach to measuring the novelty of papers from the perspective of question-method combination. Specifically, we demonstrated a life-index novelty measurement based on the frequency and age of question terms and method terms. Furthermore, by using deep learning and representation learning techniques, we proposed a semantic novelty measurement algorithm based on the semantic similarity of terms. By using the dataset of papers collected from ACM Digital Library for evaluation, the effectiveness of our methods was evaluated by case studies and statistical analysis. Our work innovatively integrates the age, frequency, and semantics of research methods and research questions that characterizes novelty in scientific publications.

Suggested Citation

  • Luo, Zhuoran & Lu, Wei & He, Jiangen & Wang, Yuqi, 2022. "Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:2:s1751157722000347
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2022.101282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157722000347
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101282?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Benjamin F. Jones, 2009. "The Burden of Knowledge and the "Death of the Renaissance Man": Is Innovation Getting Harder?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(1), pages 283-317.
    2. Naoki Shibata & Yuya Kajikawa & Katsumori Matsushima, 2007. "Topological analysis of citation networks to discover the future core articles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(6), pages 872-882, April.
    3. Yan Yan & Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 895-913, February.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Lutz Bornmann & Caroline S. Wagner, 2019. "The Relative Influences of Government Funding and International Collaboration on Citation Impact," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 70(2), pages 198-201, February.
    5. Uddin, Shahadat & Khan, Arif, 2016. "The impact of author-selected keywords on citation counts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 1166-1177.
    6. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    7. Strumsky, Deborah & Lobo, José, 2015. "Identifying the sources of technological novelty in the process of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1445-1461.
    8. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    9. Henry Small, 2006. "Tracking and predicting growth areas in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 68(3), pages 595-610, September.
    10. Tahamtan, Iman & Bornmann, Lutz, 2018. "Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 906-930.
    11. Min, Chao & Bu, Yi & Sun, Jianjun, 2021. "Predicting scientific breakthroughs based on knowledge structure variations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    12. Kevin Heffernan & Simone Teufel, 2018. "Identifying problems and solutions in scientific text," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 1367-1382, August.
    13. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    14. Soler, José M., 2007. "A rational indicator of scientific creativity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 123-130.
    15. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    16. Zhang, JingJing & Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2019. "Recombinant distance, network governance and recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 260-272.
    17. Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P. & Wang, Jian, 2015. "Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 684-697.
    18. Ponomarev, Ilya V. & Williams, Duane E. & Hackett, Charles J. & Schnell, Joshua D. & Haak, Laurel L., 2014. "Predicting highly cited papers: A Method for Early Detection of Candidate Breakthroughs," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 49-55.
    19. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2015. "Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas," NBER Working Papers 20920, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yan Yan & Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 895-913, February.
    2. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    3. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander & Zhang, Helena H. & Ye, Fred Y., 2019. "Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    4. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Dongyi & Li, Jing, 2022. "A new method for measuring the originality of academic articles based on knowledge units in semantic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    5. Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama & Byeongwoo Kang & Masatsura Igami, 2021. "Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 6891-6915, August.
    6. Libo Sheng & Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Hongquan Shen & Ying Cheng, 2023. "The association between prior knowledge and the disruption of an article," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4731-4751, August.
    7. Fontana, Magda & Iori, Martina & Montobbio, Fabio & Sinatra, Roberta, 2020. "New and atypical combinations: An assessment of novelty and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    8. Stefano Bianchini & Moritz Müller & Pierre Pelletier, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in science: An emerging general method of invention," Post-Print hal-03958025, HAL.
    9. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    10. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    11. Albert Banal-Estañol & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2016. "Key Success Drivers in Public Research Grants: Funding the Seeds of Radical Innovation in Academia?," CESifo Working Paper Series 5852, CESifo.
    12. Nicolas Carayol, 2016. "The Right Job and the Job Right: Novelty, Impact and Journal Stratification in Science," Post-Print hal-02274661, HAL.
    13. Ron Boschma & Ernest Miguelez & Rosina Moreno & Diego B. Ocampo-Corrales, 2021. "Technological breakthroughs in European regions: the role of related and unrelated combinations," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2118, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2021.
    14. Shiyun Wang & Yaxue Ma & Jin Mao & Yun Bai & Zhentao Liang & Gang Li, 2023. "Quantifying scientific breakthroughs by a novel disruption indicator based on knowledge entities," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(2), pages 150-167, February.
    15. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    16. Min, Chao & Bu, Yi & Sun, Jianjun, 2021. "Predicting scientific breakthroughs based on knowledge structure variations," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    17. Pezzoni, Michele & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "How fast is this novel technology going to be a hit? Antecedents predicting follow-on inventions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    18. Sotaro Shibayama & Deyun Yin & Kuniko Matsumoto, 2021. "Measuring novelty in science with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Sun, Bixuan & Kolesnikov, Sergey & Goldstein, Anna & Chan, Gabriel, 2021. "A dynamic approach for identifying technological breakthroughs with an application in solar photovoltaics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    20. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:16:y:2022:i:2:s1751157722000347. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.