IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v19y2025i3s1751157725000744.html

Do novel papers attract more social attention?

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Jiaqi
  • Xie, Yundong
  • Wu, Qiang

Abstract

The proliferation of social media and the increasing emphasis on societal impact on research evaluation have highlighted the importance of understanding how scientific novelty influences public engagement. This study examines how the novelty of scientific research correlates with the social attention it garners. The analysis is based on a dataset comprising over 310,000 articles in economics and business published from 2012 to 2019. We use Altmetrics—comprising the Altmetric Attention Score, Mendeley, Twitter, Blogs, News, Facebook, and Wikipedia—to evaluate the social attention received by both novel and non-novel papers as defined by us. The results show that novel research consistently garners greater social attention, with particularly strong effects observed in top-tier journals and open-access publications. Our findings remain robust even when employing alternative measures of novelty and controlling for the citation count. Further analysis comparing outcomes across various Altmetric sources provides a comprehensive view of how different platforms reflect societal engagement with novel research. This study provides valuable insights into the societal attention of novel and original scientific research, offering a new perspective for academic publishing and research evaluation.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Jiaqi & Xie, Yundong & Wu, Qiang, 2025. "Do novel papers attract more social attention?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:19:y:2025:i:3:s1751157725000744
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2025.101710
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157725000744
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101710?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    2. 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.
    3. Ou, Guiyan & Zhao, Kang & Zuo, Renxian & Wu, Jiang, 2024. "Effects of research funding on the academic impact and societal visibility of scientific research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    4. Gold, E. Richard, 2021. "The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(5).
    5. Yezhu Wang & Yundong Xie & Dong Wang & Lu Guo & Rongting Zhou, 2022. "Do cover papers get better citations and usage counts? An analysis of 42 journals in cell biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(7), pages 3793-3813, July.
    6. Dahlin, Kristina B. & Behrens, Dean M., 2005. "When is an invention really radical?: Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 717-737, June.
    7. 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.
    8. González-Betancor, Sara M. & Dorta-González, Pablo, 2023. "Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    9. Abdelghani Maddi & David Sapinho, 2022. "Article processing charges, altmetrics and citation impact: Is there an economic rationale?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7351-7368, December.
    10. Ma, Chao & Li, Yiwei & Guo, Feng & Si, Kao, 2019. "The citation trap: Papers published at year-end receive systematically fewer citations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 667-687.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0064841 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Michael Norris & Charles Oppenheim & Fytton Rowland, 2008. "The citation advantage of open‐access articles," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 59(12), pages 1963-1972, October.
    13. Steve Lawrence, 2001. "Free online availability substantially increases a paper's impact," Nature, Nature, vol. 411(6837), pages 521-521, May.
    14. 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).
    15. Samuel F. Way & Allison C. Morgan & Daniel B. Larremore & Aaron Clauset, 2019. "Productivity, prominence, and the effects of academic environment," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(22), pages 10729-10733, May.
    16. Zhang, Xinyuan & Xie, Qing & Song, Min, 2021. "Measuring the impact of novelty, bibliometric, and academic-network factors on citation count using a neural network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0197326 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    19. Yang Yang & Tanya Y. Tian & Teresa K. Woodruff & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi, 2022. "Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 119(36), pages 2200841119-, September.
    20. Yang Yang & Tanya Y. Tian & Teresa K. Woodruff & Benjamin F. Jones & Brian Uzzi, 2022. "Gender-diverse teams produce more novel and higher-impact scientific ideas," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(36), pages 2200841119-, September.
    21. Lutz Bornmann, 2013. "What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? a literature survey," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(2), pages 217-233, February.
    22. 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.
    23. repec:plo:pbio00:0040157 is not listed on IDEAS
    24. 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).
    25. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    26. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "Mendeley readership altmetrics for the social sciences and humanities: Research evaluation and knowledge flows," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(8), pages 1627-1638, August.
    27. Kristina Dahlin & Deans M. Behrens, 2005. "When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness," Post-Print hal-00480416, HAL.
    28. Xi Zhang & Xianhai Wang & Hongke Zhao & Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos & Yongqiang Sun & Hui Xiong, 2019. "An effectiveness analysis of altmetrics indices for different levels of artificial intelligence publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1311-1344, June.
    29. Sarah Kaplan & Keyvan Vakili, 2015. "The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(10), pages 1435-1457, October.
    30. D’Este, Pablo & Llopis, Oscar & Rentocchini, Francesco & Yegros, Alfredo, 2019. "The relationship between interdisciplinarity and distinct modes of university-industry interaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    31. Shiji Chen & Yanan Guo & Alvin Shijie Ding & Yanhui Song, 2024. "Is interdisciplinarity more likely to produce novel or disruptive research?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2615-2632, May.
    32. Gunther Eysenbach, 2006. "Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles," Working Papers id:626, eSocialSciences.
    33. 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.
    34. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    35. Rodrigo Costas & Zohreh Zahedi & Paul Wouters, 2015. "Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2003-2019, October.
    36. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    37. 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.
    38. Heinze, Thomas & Shapira, Philip & Rogers, Juan D. & Senker, Jacqueline M., 2009. "Organizational and institutional influences on creativity in scientific research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 610-623, May.
    39. Li Hou & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2022. "Does early publishing in top journals really predict long-term scientific success in the business field?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(11), pages 6083-6107, November.
    40. Ruilu Yang & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2023. "Are scientific articles involving corporations associated with higher citations and views? an analysis of the top journals in business research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5659-5685, October.
    41. Zohreh Zahedi & Rodrigo Costas & Paul Wouters, 2017. "Mendeley readership as a filtering tool to identify highly cited publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(10), pages 2511-2521, October.
    42. Steffen Lemke & Max Brede & Sophie Rotgeri & Isabella Peters, 2022. "Research articles promoted in embargo e-mails receive higher citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 75-97, January.
    43. Zhaoping Yan & Kaiyu Fan, 2024. "An integrated indicator for evaluating scientific papers: considering academic impact and novelty," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6909-6929, November.
    44. Abdelghani Maddi & David / Sapinho, 2022. "Article Processing Charges, Altmetrics and Citation Impact: Is there an economic rationale?," Post-Print hal-03552377, HAL.
    45. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    46. Gregory M. Nelson & Dennis L. Eggett, 2017. "Citations, mandates, and money: Author motivations to publish in chemistry hybrid open access journals," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(10), pages 2501-2510, October.
    47. Bryan Kelly & Dimitris Papanikolaou & Amit Seru & Matt Taddy, 2021. "Measuring Technological Innovation over the Long Run," American Economic Review: Insights, American Economic Association, vol. 3(3), pages 303-320, September.
    48. Wang, Jian & Lee, You-Na & Walsh, John P., 2018. "Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1070-1083.
    49. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild, 2018. "Do altmetrics correlate with the quality of papers? A large-scale empirical study based on F1000Prime data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    50. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yi Zhao & Chengzhi Zhang, 2025. "A review on the novelty measurements of academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 727-753, February.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Deyun Yin & Zhao Wu & Kazuki Yokota & Kuniko Matsumoto & Sotaro Shibayama, 2023. "Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-16, June.
    5. Guo, Liying & Wang, Yang & Li, Meiling, 2024. "Exploration, exploitation and funding success: Evidence from junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    6. Wang, Zhongyi & Zhang, Haoxuan & Chen, Jiangping & Chen, Haihua, 2024. "An effective framework for measuring the novelty of scientific articles through integrated topic modeling and cloud model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    7. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    8. 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.
    9. Dehu Yin & Xi Zhang & Hongke Zhao & Li Tang, 2024. "Predicting scholar potential: a deep learning model on social capital features," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7851-7879, December.
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Baicun Li & Aruhan Bai, 2025. "The influence of grant renewal on research content: evidence from NIH-funded PIs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(5), pages 2617-2638, May.
    13. Ren, Linlin & Guo, Lei & Yu, Hui & Guo, Feng & Wang, Xinhua & Han, Xiaohui, 2025. "Collaborating with top scientists may not improve paper novelty: A causal analysis based on the propensity score matching method," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    14. 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.
    15. Li, Meiling & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Bai, Aruhan, 2024. "Motivating innovation: The impact of prestigious talent funding on junior scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    16. Xin Liu & Yi Bu & Ming Li & Jiang Li, 2024. "Monodisciplinary collaboration disrupts science more than multidisciplinary collaboration," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 75(1), pages 59-78, January.
    17. Qu, Guannan & Chen, Jin & Zhang, Ruhao & Wang, Luyao & Yang, Yayu, 2023. "Technological search strategy and breakthrough innovation: An integrated approach based on main-path analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    18. Doblinger, Claudia & Surana, Kavita & Li, Deyu & Hultman, Nathan & Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2022. "How do global manufacturing shifts affect long-term clean energy innovation? A study of wind energy suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:19:y:2025:i:3:s1751157725000744. 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.