IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v130y2025i2d10.1007_s11192-025-05234-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A review on the novelty measurements of academic papers

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Zhao

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

  • Chengzhi Zhang

    (Nanjing University of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Novelty evaluation is vital for the promotion and management of innovation. With the advancement of information techniques and the open data movement, some progress has been made in novelty measurements. Tracking and reviewing novelty measures provides a data-driven way to assess contributions, progress, and emerging directions in the science field. As academic papers serve as the primary medium for the dissemination, validation, and discussion of scientific knowledge, this review aims to offer a systematic analysis of novelty measurements for scientific papers. We began by comparing the differences between scientific novelty and four similar concepts, including originality, scientific innovation, creativity, and scientific breakthrough. Next, we reviewed the types of scientific novelty. Then, we classified existing novelty measures according to data types and reviewed the measures for each type. Subsequently, we surveyed the approaches employed in validating novelty measures and examined the current tools and datasets associated with these measures. Finally, we proposed several open issues for future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05234-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-025-05234-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-025-05234-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-025-05234-0?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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).
    5. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    6. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    7. 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.
    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. Veugelers, Reinhilde & Wang, Jian, 2019. "Scientific novelty and technological impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1362-1372.
    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. Pierre Azoulay & Joshua S. Graff Zivin & Gustavo Manso, 2011. "Incentives and creativity: evidence from the academic life sciences," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(3), pages 527-554, September.
    12. 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).
    13. Mikko Packalen & Jay Bhattacharya, 2019. "Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 341-373.
    14. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    15. 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.
    16. Martín de Diego, Isaac & González-Fernández, César & Fernández-Isabel, Alberto & Fernández, Rubén R. & Cabezas, Javier, 2021. "System for evaluating the reliability and novelty of medical scientific papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Verhoeven, Dennis & Bakker, Jurriën & Veugelers, Reinhilde, 2016. "Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 707-723.
    18. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    19. Henry Small, 1973. "Co‐citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 24(4), pages 265-269, July.
    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).
    21. Norman Kaplan, 1965. "The norms of citation behavior: Prolegomena to the footnote," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(3), pages 179-184, July.
    22. 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.
    23. Feng Shi & James Evans, 2023. "Surprising combinations of research contents and contexts are related to impact and emerge with scientific outsiders from distant disciplines," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-13, December.
    24. Meijun Liu & Yi Bu & Chongyan Chen & Jian Xu & Daifeng Li & Yan Leng & Richard B. Freeman & Eric T. Meyer & Wonjin Yoon & Mujeen Sung & Minbyul Jeong & Jinhyuk Lee & Jaewoo Kang & Chao Min & Min Song , 2022. "Pandemics are catalysts of scientific novelty: Evidence from COVID‐19," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1065-1078, August.
    25. 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).
    26. Janssen, M. & Stoopendaal, A.M.V. & Putters, K., 2015. "Situated novelty: Introducing a process perspective on the study of innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(10), pages 1974-1984.
    27. 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.
    28. Jeon, Daeseong & Lee, Junyoup & Ahn, Joon Mo & Lee, Changyong, 2023. "Measuring the novelty of scientific publications: A fastText and local outlier factor approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    29. Alan L. Porter & Ismael Rafols, 2009. "Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 81(3), pages 719-745, December.
    30. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    31. Zhao, Yi & Liu, Lifan & Zhang, Chengzhi, 2022. "Is coronavirus-related research becoming more interdisciplinary? A perspective of co-occurrence analysis and diversity measure of scientific articles," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    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, 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).
    2. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    3. 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.
    4. Yuefen Wang & Lipeng Fan & Lei Wu, 2024. "A validation test of the Uzzi et al. novelty measure of innovation and applications to collaboration patterns between institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4379-4394, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. Christian Leibel & Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 601-639, January.
    10. Alex J. Yang & Hongcun Gong & Yuhao Wang & Chao Zhang & Sanhong Deng, 2024. "Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 561-580, January.
    11. 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 Sep 2024.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    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. Jeon, Daeseong & Lee, Junyoup & Ahn, Joon Mo & Lee, Changyong, 2023. "Measuring the novelty of scientific publications: A fastText and local outlier factor approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    17. Ao, Weiyi & Lyu, Dongqing & Ruan, Xuanmin & Li, Jiang & Cheng, Ying, 2023. "Scientific creativity patterns in scholars’ academic careers: Evidence from PubMed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    18. Jiang, Huihuang & Zhou, Jianlin & Ding, Yiming & Zeng, An, 2024. "Overcoming recognition delays in disruptive research: The impact of team size, familiarity, and reputation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    19. Ziyan Zhang & Junyan Zhang & Pushi Wang, 2024. "Measurement of disruptive innovation and its validity based on improved disruption index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6477-6531, November.
    20. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "On the temporal diversity of knowledge in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).

    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:spr:scient:v:130:y:2025:i:2:d:10.1007_s11192-025-05234-0. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.