000			03576cam a22003737 4500
001			w22180
003			NBER
005			20211020105309.0
006			m o d
007			cr cnu||||||||
008			210910s2016 mau fo 000 0 eng d
100	1		_aWang, Jian.
245	1	0	_aBias against Novelty in Science: _bA Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators / _cJian Wang, Reinhilde Veugelers, Paula Stephan.
260			_aCambridge, Mass. _bNational Bureau of Economic Research _c2016.
300			_a1 online resource: _billustrations (black and white);
490	1		_aNBER working paper series _vno. w22180
500			_aApril 2016.
520	3		_aResearch which explores unchartered waters has a high potential for major impact but also carries a higher uncertainty of having impact. Such explorative research is often described as taking a novel approach. This study examines the complex relationship between pursuing a novel approach and impact. Viewing scientific research as a combinatorial process, we measure novelty in science by examining whether a published paper makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals, taking into account the difficulty of making such combinations. We apply this newly developed measure of novelty to all Web of Science research articles published in 2001 across all scientific disciplines. We find that highly novel papers, defined to be those that make more (distant) new combinations, deliver high gains to science: they are more likely to be a top 1% highly cited paper in the long run, to inspire follow on highly cited research, and to be cited in a broader set of disciplines. At the same time, novel research is also more risky, reflected by a higher variance in its citation performance. In addition, we find that novel research is significantly more highly cited in "foreign" fields but not in its "home" field. We also find strong evidence of delayed recognition of novel papers and that novel papers are less likely to be top cited when using a short time window. Finally, novel papers typically are published in journals with a lower than expected Impact Factor. These findings suggest that science policy, in particular funding decisions which rely on traditional bibliometric indicators based on short-term direct citation counts and Journal Impact Factors, may be biased against "high risk/high gain" novel research. The findings also caution against a mono-disciplinary approach in peer review to assess the true value of novel research.
530			_aHardcopy version available to institutional subscribers
538			_aSystem requirements: Adobe [Acrobat] Reader required for PDF files.
538			_aMode of access: World Wide Web.
588	0		_aPrint version record
690		7	_aI23 - Higher Education • Research Institutions _2Journal of Economic Literature class.
690		7	_aO31 - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives _2Journal of Economic Literature class.
690		7	_aO33 - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences • Diffusion Processes _2Journal of Economic Literature class.
690		7	_aO38 - Government Policy _2Journal of Economic Literature class.
700	1		_aVeugelers, Reinhilde. _922359
700	1		_aStephan, Paula.
710	2		_aNational Bureau of Economic Research.
830		0	_aWorking Paper Series (National Bureau of Economic Research) _vno. w22180.
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.nber.org/papers/w22180
856			_yAcceso en línea al DOI _uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w22180
942			_2ddc _cW-PAPER
999			_c325942 _d284504