IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amsocr/v88y2023i3p562-597.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?

Author

Listed:
  • Erin Leahey
  • Jina Lee
  • Russell J. Funk

Abstract

Novelty and impact are key characteristics of the scientific enterprise. Classic theories of scientific change distinguish among different types of novelty and emphasize how a new idea interacts with previous work and influences future flows of knowledge. However, even recently developed measures of novelty remain unidimensional, and continued reliance on citation counts captures only the amount, but not the nature, of scientific impact. To better align theoretical and empirical work, we attend to different types of novelty (new results, new theories, and new methods) and whether a scientific offering has a consolidating form of influence (bringing renewed attention to foundational ideas) or a disruptive one (prompting subsequent scholars to overlook them). By integrating data from the Web of Science (to measure the nature of influence) with essays written by authors of Citation Classics (to measure novelty type), and by joining computational text analysis with statistical analyses, we demonstrate clear and robust patterns between type of novelty and the nature of scientific influence. As expected, new methods tend to be more disruptive, whereas new theories tend to be less disruptive. Surprisingly, new results do not have a robust effect on the nature of scientific influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Erin Leahey & Jina Lee & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?," American Sociological Review, , vol. 88(3), pages 562-597, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amsocr:v:88:y:2023:i:3:p:562-597
    DOI: 10.1177/00031224231168074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00031224231168074
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00031224231168074?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Koppman, Sharon & Leahey, Erin, 2019. "Who moves to the methodological edge? Factors that encourage scientists to use unconventional methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    4. Leah G. Nichols, 2014. "A topic model approach to measuring interdisciplinarity at the National Science Foundation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(3), pages 741-754, September.
    5. Lutz Bornmann & Sitaram Devarakonda & Alexander Tekles & George Chacko, 2020. "Disruptive papers published in Scientometrics: meaningful results by using an improved variant of the disruption index originally proposed by Wu, Wang, and Evans (2019)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 123(2), pages 1149-1155, May.
    6. 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).
    7. Park, Douglas Y & Podolny, Joel M, 2000. "The Competitive Dynamics of Status and Niche Width: US Investment Banking, 1920-1949," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(3), pages 377-414, September.
    8. Iman Tahamtan & Lutz Bornmann, 2019. "What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1635-1684, December.
    9. Peter J. Turnbaugh & Ruth E. Ley & Michael A. Mahowald & Vincent Magrini & Elaine R. Mardis & Jeffrey I. Gordon, 2006. "An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest," Nature, Nature, vol. 444(7122), pages 1027-1031, December.
    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.
    2. Yulin Yu & Daniel M. Romero, 2024. "Does the Use of Unusual Combinations of Datasets Contribute to Greater Scientific Impact?," Papers 2402.05024, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    3. Honglin Bao & Misha Teplitskiy, 2024. "A simulation-based analysis of the impact of rhetorical citations in science," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-11, December.

    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. Guoqiang Liang & Ying Lou & Haiyan Hou, 2022. "Revisiting the disruptive index: evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5721-5730, October.
    2. Zhentao Liang & Jin Mao & Gang Li, 2023. "Bias against scientific novelty: A prepublication perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(1), pages 99-114, January.
    3. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Yulin Yu & Daniel M. Romero, 2024. "Does the Use of Unusual Combinations of Datasets Contribute to Greater Scientific Impact?," Papers 2402.05024, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2024.
    6. 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).
    7. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Nicola Melluso & Francesco Alessandro Massucci, 2022. "Exploring the antecedents of interdisciplinarity at the European Research Council: a topic modeling approach," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6961-6991, December.
    8. Bornmann, Lutz & Tekles, Alexander, 2021. "Convergent validity of several indicators measuring disruptiveness with milestone assignments to physics papers by experts," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    9. Ruan, Xuanmin & Lyu, Dongqing & Gong, Kaile & Cheng, Ying & Li, Jiang, 2021. "Rethinking the disruption index as a measure of scientific and technological advances," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    10. Wenjie Wei & Hongxu Liu & Zhuanlan Sun, 2022. "Cover papers of top journals are reliable source for emerging topics detection: a machine learning based prediction framework," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4315-4333, August.
    11. António Osório & Lutz Bornmann, 2021. "On the disruptive power of small-teams research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 117-133, January.
    12. 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.
    13. Peter Sjögårde & Fereshteh Didegah, 2022. "The association between topic growth and citation impact of research publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1903-1921, April.
    14. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    15. 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.
    16. Leydesdorff, Loet & Bornmann, Lutz, 2021. "Disruption indices and their calculation using web-of-science data: Indicators of historical developments or evolutionary dynamics?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    18. Jeffrey T. Macher & Christian Rutzer & Rolf Weder, 2023. "The Illusive Slump of Disruptive Patents," Papers 2306.10774, arXiv.org.
    19. 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.
    20. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.

    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:sae:amsocr:v:88:y:2023:i:3:p:562-597. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.