IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2602.06607.html

Beyond Pairwise Distance: Cognitive Traversal Distance as a Holistic Measure of Scientific Novelty

Author

Listed:
  • Yi Xiang
  • Pascal Welke
  • Chengzhi Zhang
  • Jian Wang

Abstract

Scientific novelty is a critical construct in bibliometrics and is commonly measured by aggregating pairwise distances between the knowledge units underlying a paper. While prior work has refined how such distances are computed, less attention has been paid to how dyadic relations are aggregated to characterize novelty at the paper level. We address this limitation by introducing a network-based indicator, Cognitive Traversal Distance (CTD). Conceptualizing the historical literature as a weighted knowledge network, CTD is defined as the length of the shortest path required to connect all knowledge units associated with a paper. CTD provides a paper-level novelty measure that reflects the minimal structural distance needed to integrate multiple knowledge units, moving beyond mean- or quantile-based aggregation of pairwise distances. Using 27 million biomedical publications indexed by OpenAlex and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) as standardized knowledge units, we evaluate CTD against expert-based novelty benchmarks from F1000Prime-recommended papers and Nobel Prize-winning publications. CTD consistently outperforms conventional aggregation-based indicators. We further show that MeSH-based CTD is less sensitive to novelty driven by the emergence of entirely new conceptual labels, clarifying its scope relative to recent text-based measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Yi Xiang & Pascal Welke & Chengzhi Zhang & Jian Wang, 2026. "Beyond Pairwise Distance: Cognitive Traversal Distance as a Holistic Measure of Scientific Novelty," Papers 2602.06607, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2602.06607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2602.06607
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ludo Waltman & Rodrigo Costas, 2014. "F1000 Recommendations as a Potential New Data Source for Research Evaluation: A Comparison With Citations," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(3), pages 433-445, March.
    2. Madeline K. Kneeland & Melissa A. Schilling & Barak S. Aharonson, 2020. "Exploring Uncharted Territory: Knowledge Search Processes in the Origination of Outlier Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(3), pages 535-557, May.
    3. 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.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. Chai, Sen & Menon, Anoop, 2019. "Breakthrough recognition: Bias against novelty and competition for attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 733-747.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Li, He & Steinberg, Philip J. & Bruns, Hille C. & Surroca, Jordi A., 2025. "Unlocking organizational creativity: Unique effects of corporate social responsibility in leveraging individual creativity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(8).
    9. 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.
    10. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    14. Wenqing Wu & Chengzhi Zhang & Yi Zhao, 2025. "Automated novelty evaluation of academic paper: A collaborative approach integrating human and large language model knowledge," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 76(11), pages 1452-1469, November.
    15. 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).
    16. 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).
    17. Marc Gruber & Dietmar Harhoff & Karin Hoisl, 2013. "Knowledge Recombination Across Technological Boundaries: Scientists vs. Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 837-851, April.
    18. 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).
    19. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    20. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    21. Ying Ding & Guo Zhang & Tamy Chambers & Min Song & Xiaolong Wang & Chengxiang Zhai, 2014. "Content-based citation analysis: The next generation of citation analysis," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(9), pages 1820-1833, September.
    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. 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.
    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. Ao, Weiyi & Sheng, Libo & Ruan, Xuanmin & Lyu, Dongqing & Li, Jiang & Cheng, Ying, 2025. "Researching deeply or broadly? The effects of scientists’ research strategies on disruptive performance over their careers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2).
    5. 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).
    6. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    7. Chaofeng Wu, 2025. "Novelty and Impact of Economics Papers," Papers 2511.01211, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    8. 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.
    9. Hou, Tianyu & Zhang, Liang & Li, Julie Juan & Chong, Bin & Wu, Yanzi, 2024. "The quest for valuable inventions: Knowledge search and the value of patented inventions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. 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).
    11. 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).
    12. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    13. 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.
    14. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    15. Ke, Qing, 2020. "Technological impact of biomedical research: The role of basicness and novelty," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(7).
    16. Wang, Tao & Wang, Jiajie & Shi, Jing & Sun, Jianjun & Kang, Lele, 2025. "Technological recombinant strategy and breakthrough innovation of team: The moderating role of science linkage," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1).
    17. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    18. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    19. Kok, Holmer & Monroe, Joseph & Kappen, Philip, 2025. "Trajectory integration and the impact of inventions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:arx:papers:2602.06607. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.