IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v55y2026i1s004873332500174x.html

The geography of novel and atypical research

Author

Listed:
  • Ke, Qing
  • Pan, Tianxing
  • Mao, Jin

Abstract

The production of knowledge has become increasingly a global endeavor. Yet, location related factors, such as local working environment and national policy designs, may continue to a!ect what kind of science is being pursued. Here we examine the geography of the production of creative science by country, through the lens of novelty and atypicality proposed in Uzzi et al. (2013). We quantify a country’s representativeness in novel and atypical science, finding persistent differences in propensity to generate creative works, even among developed countries that are large producers in science. We further cluster countries based on how their tendency to publish novel science changes over time, identifying one group of emerging countries. Our analyses point out the recent emergence of China not only as a large producer in science but also as a leader that disproportionately produces more novel and atypical research. Discipline specific analysis indicates that China’s over-production of atypical science is limited to a few disciplines, especially its most prolific ones like materials science and chemistry.

Suggested Citation

  • Ke, Qing & Pan, Tianxing & Mao, Jin, 2026. "The geography of novel and atypical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(1).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:55:y:2026:i:1:s004873332500174x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2025.105345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873332500174X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105345?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. Bruce Kogut & Udo Zander, 1992. "Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 383-397, August.
    2. Cesar A. Hidalgo & Ricardo Hausmann, 2009. "The Building Blocks of Economic Complexity," Papers 0909.3890, arXiv.org.
    3. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula & Wang, Jian, 2022. "Do funding agencies select and enable risky research: Evidence from ERC using novelty as a proxy of risk taking," CEPR Discussion Papers 17684, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Francis Narin & Mark P. Carpenter, 1975. "National publication and citation comparisons," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 26(2), pages 80-93, March.
    5. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    6. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    7. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    8. Guan, Jiancheng & Ma, Nan, 2007. "China's emerging presence in nanoscience and nanotechnology: A comparative bibliometric study of several nanoscience `giants'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 880-886, July.
    9. repec:plo:pone00:0113470 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Richard Klavans & Kevin W Boyack, 2017. "The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, January.
    11. Charles Ayoubi & Michele Pezzoni & Fabiana Visentin, 2021. "Does It Pay to Do Novel Science? The Selectivity Patterns in Science Funding," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(5), pages 635-648.
    12. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    13. Thomas Heinze & Marie von der Heyden & David Pithan, 2020. "Institutional environments and breakthroughs in science. Comparison of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Félix Moya-Anegón & Víctor Herrero-Solana, 2013. "Worldwide Topology of the Scientific Subject Profile: A Macro Approach in the Country Level," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-1, December.
    15. Kevin J. Boudreau & Eva C. Guinan & Karim R. Lakhani & Christoph Riedl, 2016. "Looking Across and Looking Beyond the Knowledge Frontier: Intellectual Distance, Novelty, and Resource Allocation in Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(10), pages 2765-2783, October.
    16. Keijl, S. & Gilsing, V.A. & Knoben, J. & Duysters, G., 2016. "The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recombination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 1061-1074.
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0194805 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. Wagner, Caroline S. & Whetsell, Travis A. & Mukherjee, Satyam, 2019. "International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1260-1270.
    20. 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.
    21. C. A. Hidalgo & B. Klinger & A. -L. Barabasi & R. Hausmann, 2007. "The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations," Papers 0708.2090, arXiv.org.
    22. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    23. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation and Public Policy, pages 117-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    24. 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.
    25. Zhou, Ping & Leydesdorff, Loet, 2006. "The emergence of China as a leading nation in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 83-104, February.
    26. Bas Hofstra & Vivek V. Kulkarni & Sebastian Munoz-Najar Galvez & Bryan He & Dan Jurafsky & Daniel A. McFarland, 2020. "The Diversity–Innovation Paradox in Science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 117(17), pages 9284-9291, April.
    27. 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.
    28. Pierre Azoulay & Danielle Li, 2020. "Scientific Grant Funding," NBER Working Papers 26889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers & Jian Wang, 2017. "Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics," Nature, Nature, vol. 544(7651), pages 411-412, April.
    30. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2017. "Science, technology, and innovation for economic competitiveness: The role of smart specialization in less-developed countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 95-107.
    31. Lili Miao & Dakota Murray & Woo-Sung Jung & Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Yong-Yeol Ahn, 2022. "The latent structure of global scientific development," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(9), pages 1206-1217, September.
    32. David A. King, 2004. "The scientific impact of nations," Nature, Nature, vol. 430(6997), pages 311-316, July.
    33. 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.
    34. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    35. Johan S. G. Chu & James A. Evans, 2021. "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(41), pages 2021636118-, October.
    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. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    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. Brea, Edgar, 2024. "The yin yang of AI: Exploring how commercial and non-commercial orientations shape machine learning innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    9. 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.
    10. Deichmann, Dirk & Moser, Christine & Birkholz, Julie M. & Nerghes, Adina & Groenewegen, Peter & Wang, Shenghui, 2020. "Ideas with impact: How connectivity shapes idea diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    11. Pierre Pelletier & Kevin Wirtz, 2023. "Sails and Anchors: The Complementarity of Exploratory and Exploitative Scientists in Knowledge Creation," Papers 2312.10476, arXiv.org.
    12. Emanuele Pugliese & Lorenzo Napolitano & Andrea Zaccaria & Luciano Pietronero, 2019. "Coherent diversification in corporate technological portfolios," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, October.
    13. Abbasiharofteh, Milad & Kogler, Dieter F. & Lengyel, Balázs, 2023. "Atypical combinations of technologies in regional co-inventor networks," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1-1.
    14. Keye Wu & Ziyue Xie & Jia Tina Du, 2024. "Does science disrupt technology? Examining science intensity, novelty, and recency through patent-paper citations in the pharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5469-5491, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Kwon, Seokbeom, 2022. "Interdisciplinary knowledge integration as a unique knowledge source for technology development and the role of funding allocation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    17. Cheng, Jiaqi & Xie, Yundong & Wu, Qiang, 2025. "Do novel papers attract more social attention?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    18. Chaewon Park & Sung Joo Bae, 2026. "Partner diversity and post-project effort in achieving scientific novelty and impact," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 131(3), pages 1677-1705, March.
    19. 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 Dec 2024.
    20. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.

    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:respol:v:55:y:2026:i:1:s004873332500174x. 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/respol .

    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.