how to find novelty in research paper

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Novelty in Research: What it is and How to Know Your Work is Original

One of the key prerequisites for researcher success, irrespective of their field of study, is identifying the novelty in research. They hope to make new discoveries that build on the work of others and produce fresh perspectives on existing knowledge in their field. To achieve this, researchers invest considerable time and effort in reading relevant literature, conducting experiments, and staying up to date on the latest developments in their own and related fields. Most journals seek to publish research that is novel, significant, and interesting to its readers. Establishing novelty in research is also critical when applying for funding, which makes it essential to prove this early in the research process. But what is meant by novelty in research and how can one judge the novelty of their research study? This article will help you answer these questions in the simplest manner.

Table of Contents

What is meant by novelty in research?

The word ‘novelty’ comes from the Latin word ‘novus,’ which simply means new. Apart from new, the term is also associated with things, ideas or products for instance, that are original or unusual. Novelty in research refers to the introduction of a new idea or a unique perspective that adds to the existing knowledge in a particular field of study. It involves bringing something fresh and original to the table that has not been done before or exploring an existing topic in a new and innovative way. Novelty in research expands the boundaries of a particular research discipline and provides new insights into previously unexplored areas. It is also one of the first things academic journals look for when evaluating a manuscript submitted for publishing. This makes it essential for researchers to ensure novelty in research in order to create new knowledge and make a significant contribution to their field of study.

How can you ensure novelty in research?

Academics are often immersed in their research and so focused on excellence that it can be difficult to examine your work as an author and judge its novelty in research objectively. But this challenge can be overcome with time and practice by adding research reading to your daily schedule. Assessing novelty in research means evaluating how new and original the ideas or findings presented in a study are, in comparison to existing knowledge in the field. Here are some ways to judge the novelty of research:

• Conduct a literature review: A literature review is an essential component of any research project, and it helps to establish the context for the study by identifying what is already known about the topic. By reviewing the existing literature, researchers can identify gaps in the knowledge and formulate new questions or hypotheses to investigate, ensuring novelty in research.
• Compare with previous studies: Researchers can assess the novelty of their work by comparing their findings to those of previous studies in the same or related fields. If the results differ significantly from what has been previously reported, it can be an indication that the study is novel and potentially significant.
• Read target journal publications: Subscribe to your target journal and other reputed journals in your field of study and keep up with the articles it publishes. Since most high-impact journals typically ensure novelty in research when publishing papers, this will help you keep track of the developments and progress being made in your subject area.
• Assess contribution to the field: One way to assess novelty in research is to evaluate how much it contributes to your specific field. Research that makes a significant contribution to advancing knowledge or addressing important questions is often considered more valuable than those that simply replicate elements from previously published research.
• Consider an alternative methodology: Even if the topic or area of study has been studied, one can bring in novelty in research by exploring various methodologies or by tweaking the research question to provide new insights and perspectives. Researchers can highlight aspects of the study that have not been done before, introduce these in the proposed research design, and illuminate how this will ensure novelty in research.
• Get support from your peers: Engage with your mentors/supervisors, professors, peers, and other experts in the field to get their feedback on introducing novelties in their research. It’s a good idea to join and actively participate in scientific research and scholarly groups or networks where users provide updates on new technological innovations and development.
• Make research reading a habit: An overwhelming number of research papers are published every day, making it difficult for researchers to keep up with new, relevant developments in the world of research. This is where online tools for researchers can help you simplify this process while saving on time and effort. Smart AI-driven apps like R Discovery can understand your areas of interest and curate a reading feed with personalized article recommendation, alerts on newly published articles, summaries to help you quickly evaluate articles, and many other useful features for researchers. By taking the search out of research, it gives you back time that you can then spend to stay updated and ensure novelty in research.

In an ideal world, all research done would be completely original. Yet with rapid advances in technology and research, there are bound to be overlaps with previously published papers. The key here is to find a new way of looking at old problems, trying new methodologies and angles, and coming up with interesting insights that can add to or alter current knowledge in your field of research. Smart online tools have made it easier to read and keep up with the latest in research and we’re sure the tips above will help you better assess your project and judge the novelty of your research study.

Related Posts

What is Inductive Reasoning? Definition, Types and Examples

How R Discovery achieved 2X engagement with GetFTR

How to Find Novelty in Research

How to f ind novelty in research.

Novelty is a new discovery or renewal in a research . It’s means that novelty is how researchers in their research find new knowledge, information, methods from previous research. 

Novelty in a research is important because a research must contain benefits or impacts for the environment and from a social perspective. The following points may help you find novelty in your research:

1. Read the research literature

First, to find innovation in research is read lots of research literature. Searching for literature on similar topics will assist you to determine whether an existing research topic has been used or not. In addition, you should focus on things, such as methodology, theory, and previous research findings in order to analyze your original research. You can find research literature in several online libraries, both national and international. For example, Sinta, Scopus, Google Scholar , Academia.edu.

2. Finding Research Gap Problems

Second, unresolved problem that has not been resolve by any existing researches within your field referred as research gap. If a previous research is outdated and requires revision or updating, researchers may occasionally discover a research gap in their research. For example, there is research on internet use in 2000 is no longer valid today, and the data needs modification.  

3. Find Variables That Have Never Been Researched

Third, one of the innovations in research comes from variables that have never been studied before. Reading the literature is your key to find out whether variables have been used or not in research in your field.

4. Apply Different Theory from Previous Research

Furthermore, a research can find novelty if it is studied using a different theory. Therefore, you can innovate your research by finding or analyzing a research with a different theories. Otherwise, you can also study it with different methodologies.

to publish your journal, please contact +62 813-5858-0584 or visit our journal at www.jfpublisher.com

Leave Your Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Popular Posts

Journal Editors vs Reviewers: Key...

8 Overlooked Citations in Scientific

The Power of Proofreading: Why...

Subscribe us for amazing updates and news about elementor..

We as international journal publisher that can be accessed by every researcher and reader to explore and cite academic research content. also provides open access journals and distributes knowledge globally.

Quick Links

• Our Journal
• For Reviewers
• For Authors
• Editorial Board

Contact Info

Graha indah e-11 gayung kebonsari, gayungan, surabaya, east java. 60235, [email protected], +62 813 - 5858 - 0584, copyright © 2023 jf publisher by jakad.id . all rights reserved.

404 Not found

Selecting and Developing a Law Research Topic

• Introduction
• Selecting a Topic
• Developing a Thesis
• Checking the Novelty of the Thesis
• Referencing and citing

What is a Novelty Check

The purpose for checking the novelty of your thesis is to ensure that what you are about to write has not already been covered by another author in such a way that you cannot significantly add to the discussion.  In the United States, this is commonly referred to as a 'Pre-emption Check'.  A novelty or pre-emption check ensures a certain level of originality in your work.  However, it does not mean that your thesis must be completely original.  You may cover a similar topic as long as your approach is different.  If, however, your thesis does not add anything new to the scholarly literature on the topic, you should choose another thesis or topic.

Another purpose of a novelty check is to ensure that your thesis is relevant.  If you are writing about a pending legal case or a piece of legislation, you will want to make sure that the issue is not resolved and made obsolete before your paper is finished (see 'Check Status of Cases and Statutes').

In order to perform a novelty check, you will need to search the journal literature to see what has already been written on your topic.  If you search all of the indexes and databases listed on this page, you will notice that there is a lot of overlap among the sources. Each, however, covers some journals that the others do not.

By performing a novelty check, you will have completed a significant part of your research.  A literature review is a necessary step in the writing process, and by performing a novelty check you will have essentially completed a literature review on your topic.  Therefore, as you are checking the novelty of your thesis, keep good records of the material you review. 

Once you are satisfied that your thesis is sufficiently original, you must continue monitoring it to ensure that further developments do not pre-empt your topic without you knowing about it.  There are several services that will provide topical reports and monitor case developments for you, and they are listed below under 'Monitor Your Topic'.

Checking the Status of a Case

If the topic or the argument of your paper focuses on a particular legal case, you will want to check that the case is still good law.  For cases, check to see if there is any subsequent history, including if a petition for review or an appeal/special leave application has been filed.  You also want to check how your case has been treated in subsequent cases.  For example, whether it has been distinguished, followed, or overruled by a higher authority. 

There are  several options for tools that search for cases see the  Australian Case Citator Comparison page. 

Use the following subscription and free case citators to check the status of Australian cases. For cases from other jurisdictions, refer to the Law Library's Case Citators list.

• Westlaw Australia Westlaw Australia provides Australian legal resources with selected New Zealand content. See relevant cases, commentary and authorised reports in a single search. Uses natural language search and a database of case law and journals, legislation and commentary to precedents, encyclopaedia and news.
• CaseBase (Lexis + Australia) Subscription database.
• AustLII's LawCite Free database.
• Barnet Jade's Citator Free database

Checking the Status of an Act

If the topic or the argument of your paper focuses on an Act, you will want to check that the Act is still in force. For example, has the Act been repealed, consolidated or are there pending/proposed legislation that could substantially change the Act?

Use the following resources to check that an Act is up to date and for any pending legislative activity that may amend the Act. For foreign statutes, please review the Law Library's Research Guides for that particular country to learn more about legislation tracking in that jurisdiction.

• Federal Register of Legislation (previously ComLaw) Free database - Use this site to locate Commonwealth legislation. Locate your Act and ensure it's the latest version. Check the Notes at the end of the Act to see the amendments included in the version.
• Parliament of Australia - Bills Free database - Use to find any Bills that have recently passed or may soon pass which affect your Act.
• Victorian Legislation and Parliament Documents The primary source for Victorian legislation. Find Bills considered by Parliament, Acts of Parliament and statutory rules.
• << Previous: Developing a Thesis
• Next: Resources >>
• Last Updated: Mar 25, 2024 4:17 PM
• URL: https://unimelb.libguides.com/law_research_topic

Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach

• Published: 23 June 2021
• Volume 126 , pages 6891–6915, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Kuniko Matsumoto 1 ,
• Sotaro Shibayama 2 ,
• Byeongwoo Kang 3 &
• Masatsura Igami 1  

1461 Accesses

5 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Citation counts have long been considered as the primary bibliographic indicator for evaluating the quality of research—a practice premised on the assumption that citation count is reflective of the impact of a scientific publication. However, identifying several limitations in the use of citation counts alone, scholars have advanced the need for multifaceted quality evaluation methods. In this study, we apply a novelty indicator to quantify the degree of citation similarity between a focal paper and a pre-existing same-domain paper from various fields in the natural sciences by proposing a new way of identifying papers that fall into the same domain of focal papers using bibliometric data only. We also conduct a validation analysis, using Japanese survey data, to confirm its usefulness. Employing ordered logit and ordinary least squares regression models, this study tests the consistency between the novelty scores of 1871 Japanese papers published in the natural sciences between 2001 and 2006 and researchers’ subjective judgments of their novelty. The results show statistically positive correlations between novelty scores and researchers’ assessment of research types reflecting aspects of novelty in various natural science fields. As such, this study demonstrates that the proposed novelty indicator is a suitable means of identifying the novelty of various types of natural scientific research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation

Yan Yan, Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang

Emerging trends and new developments in information science: a document co-citation analysis (2009–2016)

Jianhua Hou, Xiucai Yang & Chaomei Chen

Change of perspective: bibliometrics from the point of view of cited references—a literature overview on approaches to the evaluation of cited references in bibliometrics

Werner Marx & Lutz Bornmann

The journal field refers the 22 scientific fields in the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) of Thomson Reuters.

The reclassification procedures of multidisciplinary field papers were as follows: (i) collecting the references of a focal paper in the multidisciplinary field; (ii) identifying the scientific field of each reference, where a field was identified based on the scientific fields of a journal; (iii) finding the most frequent scientific field in the references of the focal paper, except for multidisciplinary fields; and (iv) using the most frequent scientific field as the scientific field of the focal paper.

These correspond to focal papers without reference papers or having no same-domain papers. For these focal papers, the novelty scores are not calculable or become zero (the latter case is rare in our study; there are only two observations).

As shown in Tables 2 and 3 , our novelty scores are close to 1 and their variances are small. Previous research indicators (i.e., those used by Dahlin and Behrens ( 2005 ) and Trapido ( 2015 )), which are the basis of our indicators, also have similar features. The small variation in the scores may make it difficult to interpret whether novelty is high or low, especially for the practical use of the indicators. On this point, applying methods such as standardization would help interpret the indicators. Figure  2 is one such example where we adopted percentile representation for the horizontal axis.

This tendency is also confirmed in the other citation windows.

The ordered logit and OLS regression models use the same dependent and independent variables with robust standard errors.

Ahmed, T., Johnson, B., Oppenheim, C., & Peck, C. (2004). Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited: Part II. The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA. Scientometrics, 61 , 147–156.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baird, L. M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20 (1), 2–15.

Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6 (1), 11–18.

Bornmann, L., Tekles, A., Zhang, H. H., & Fred, Y. 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, 13 (4), 100979.

Clarivate Analytics. (2020). Web of science core collection help. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html . Accessed 16 October 2020.

Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34 (5), 717–737.

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47 (1), 117–132.

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520 (7548), 429–431.

Igami, M., Nagaoka, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2015). Contribution of postdoctoral fellows to fast-moving and competitive scientific research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 (4), 723–741.

Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (10), 1435–1457.

Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44 (3), 684–697.

MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36 (3), 435–444.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220–232.

Murayama, K., Nirei, M., & Shimizu, H. (2015). Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the US. Research Policy, 44 (4), 862–873.

Nagaoka, S., Igami, M., Eto, M., & Ijichi, T. (2010). Knowledge creation process in science: Basic findings from a large-scale survey of researchers in Japan . IIR Working Paper, WP#10–08. Japan: Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nieminen, P., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., & Schumacher, M. (2006). The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-42

Oppenheim, C., & Renn, S. P. (1978). Highly cited old papers and reasons why they continue to be cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 , 225–231.

Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1), 3–22.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process . McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 475–494.

Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references? Journal of Informetrics, 12 (3), 906–930.

Thelwall, M. (2017). Web indicators for research evaluation: A practical guide. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval and Services, 8 (4), i1–i155.

Google Scholar  

Trapido, D. (2015). How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities. Research Policy, 44 (8), 1488–1500.

Uddin, S., Khan, A., & Baur, L. A. (2015). A framework to explore the knowledge structure of multidisciplinary research fields. PLoS ONE, 10 (4), e0123537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123537

Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472.

Verhoeven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45 (3), 707–723.

Walsh, J. P., & Lee, Y. N. (2015). The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy, 44 (8), 1584–1600.

Wang, J., Lee, Y.-N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy, 47 (6), 1070–1083.

Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46 (8), 1416–1436.

Zdaniuk, B. (2014). Ordinary least-squares (OLS) model. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Natsuo Onodera for his invaluable insights regarding the measuring of the novelty score.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis and Indicators, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Tokyo, Japan

Kuniko Matsumoto & Masatsura Igami

School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Sotaro Shibayama

Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan

Byeongwoo Kang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by KM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuniko Matsumoto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Matsumoto, K., Shibayama, S., Kang, B. et al. Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach. Scientometrics 126 , 6891–6915 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04049-z

Download citation

Received : 18 November 2020

Accepted : 17 May 2021

Published : 23 June 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04049-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometrics
• Reference combination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

We use cookies on this site to enhance your experience

By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

A link to reset your password has been sent to your email.

Back to login

We need additional information from you. Please complete your profile first before placing your order.

Thank you. payment completed., you will receive an email from us to confirm your registration, please click the link in the email to activate your account., there was error during payment, orcid profile found in public registry, download history, novelty effect: how to ensure your research ideas are original and new.

• Charlesworth Author Services
• 12 January, 2022

What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. — Ecclesiastes

Novelty can be described as the quality of being new, original or unusual . Novelty in scientific publishing is crucial, because journal editors and peer reviewers greatly prize novel research over and above confirmatory papers or research with negative results . After all, why give precious and limited journal space to something previously reported when authors submit novel, unreported discoveries?

How do you know what constitutes as novel? How can you as an academic author enhance the novelty effect with your research submissions ? Below we explore ideas that will help you maximise the novelty effect in your submissions.

a. New discovery

This comprises research on and reports of completely new discoveries. These can be new chemical elements, planets or other astrological phenomena, new species of flora or fauna, previously undiagnosed diseases, viruses etc. These are things never seen or reported before. Often such new discoveries serve as a seedbed for multiple reports or even completely new avenues of research. Journals prize submissions on new discoveries and often tout them in media reports.

b. The exceptionally rare

Not quite as exciting as new discoveries are reports on things not new, but seen or encountered exceptionally rarely, or not for a long time. An example is the sighting of the rare pink handfish, recently spotted in Australia for the first time in decades. In biomedical publishing , rare case reports of a near-unique condition (such as the separation of conjoined twins) are occasionally published and make the nightly news.

c. New theories

Typically, these papers provide substantial data which supports the novel thesis. Reports of new theories must have rigorous logic and need to stand on clear and well-documented foundations. They can’t be simple flights of theoretical fancy. As with new discoveries, new theories can spawn whole new branches of scientific inquiry.

d. New or significantly improved diagnostic/laboratory techniques

Reports on novel techniques don’t usually receive coverage from the mass media, but can often garner huge numbers of references if the new technique is adopted by the scientific community. Publication-worthy techniques include those which are more efficient, less time-consuming or more reliable than currently existing techniques or diagnostic procedures. Anything that is truly new or improves significantly on an established technique is potentially worthy of publication. In medicine, new surgical techniques are very important, but here’s a tip : try to provide a large prospective case series with long-term follow-up instead of a just a single case report.

e. Existing data combined into new knowledge

There is a profound novelty effect when researchers combine existing data/knowledge into something new. Ideas from disparate, previously unrelated fields of research can lead to completely novel discoveries with untold potential applications. Translational or applied research (particularly in the biomedical sciences) has borne abundant fruit over the last many decades. Translational applications of chemistry and physics to medicine have seen enormous advances in the diagnosis and treatment of numerous diseases.

f. Incremental additions to the literature

Not all research or publications will report on truly novel discoveries; in fact, very few will. But that doesn’t necessarily diminish the novelty effect of your work. The vast majority of published research adds incrementally to what is already known, nudging scientific knowledge forward. The accumulation of incremental discovery leads, over time, to large gains in understanding and knowledge.

How to ensure and verify the novelty effect

Whether your research reports something completely new or furthers an existing field in a new way, you need to make sure the contribution is indeed new.

• Do your homework : Pore through the literature (in as many languages as possible) to make sure your idea is indeed new, or significantly different enough to be considered new.
• To the degree possible, provide the ‘idea genealogy’ for your concept : Reference the major sources of those who have come before you. Through references and by describing your thought processes, describe clearly how you came up with the new idea or combination of ideas.
• Disclose your sources of inspiration and new application : Doing so constitutes academic honesty, gives credit to those upon whose shoulders your research rests and provides intellectual fertiliser for other scientists who may, in turn, be able to build upon your own ideas.

All the best for your (novel) submission!

Maximise your publication success with Charlesworth Author Services.

Charlesworth Author Services, a trusted brand supporting the world’s leading academic publishers, institutions and authors since 1928. 

To know more about our services, visit: Our Services

Share with your colleagues

Related articles.

Continuous Learning 2: Methods to Keep up with the Latest Literature

Charlesworth Author Services 17/11/2021 00:00:00

How to identify Gaps in research and determine your original research topic

Charlesworth Author Services 14/09/2021 00:00:00

Tips for designing your Research Question

Charlesworth Author Services 01/08/2017 00:00:00

Related webinars

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 5: Conduct a Literature Review

Charlesworth Author Services 04/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 8: Write a strong methods section

Charlesworth Author Services 05/03/2021 00:00:00

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication: Module 9:Write a strong results and discussion section

Bitesize Webinar: How to write and structure your academic article for publication - Module 14: Increase your chances for publication

Charlesworth Author Services 20/04/2021 00:00:00

Writing the paper

How to write an Introduction to an academic article

Charlesworth Author Services 17/08/2020 00:00:00

Strategies for writing the Results section in a scientific paper

Charlesworth Author Services 27/10/2021 00:00:00

Writing an effective Discussion section in a scientific paper

Research Synergy Institute

Finding out the Novelty of the Research

Novelty of the research refers to one or elements that are new in the research, including new methodology or new observation which leads to a new knowledge discovery. A novelty might contribute to scientific progress, as stated by the Philosopher, Imre Lakatos, that good research programs are “progressive”. The novelty of the research and research impact can be a strategic way to engage the attention of the readers in a research paper. The essence of novelty of the obtained results of the research needs to be connected with their importance for science as well as with practical importance. For finding novelty in area of research, researchers need to conduct a thorough literature review to find out what is studied and what are the gaps which need to be clarified. This literature review depend on in-depth knowledge of the field. Researchers should compare and link their work with other previous research. Many high impact journals will tend to prioritize choosing to publish novel articles. With a large amount of research and rapid scientific development, it becomes a challenge and pressure for some researchers to produce innovative and relevant research.

REFERENCES:

Cohen, B.A. (2017). How Should Novelty be Valued in Science? . [ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

What is novelty in Research . [editage.com]

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.67(3); 2023 Mar
• PMC10220166

Novelty in research: A common reason for manuscript rejection!

Nishant kumar.

Department of Anaesthesia, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India

Zulfiqar Ali

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Rudrashish Haldar

2 Department of Anesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

We often hear back from reviewers and editors of scientific journals that a particular manuscript (original research, case report, series or letter to the editor) has not been accepted because it lacks novelty. Though disheartening, the reason for such a response from said reviewers needs proper elucidation, as a moral obligation from the editorial board towards the authors of the manuscripts.

Research, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary is ‘a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding’. [ 1 ] Novelty on the other hand is defined as ‘the quality of being new, original, or unusual’ or a ‘new or unfamiliar thing or experience’. Therefore, adding the adjective novel along with research is actually one of the most common redundancies that is similar to ‘return back’ or ‘revert back’ and denotes one and the same thing! [ 1 ]

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the English language, novel research can be best described as one or more elements of research that are unique, such as a new methodology or a new observation that leads to the acquisition of new knowledge. It is this novelty that contributes to scientific progress. Since the main aim of research is to unravel what is unknown or to challenge views or ideas that may or may not be based on sound scientific principles, this exclusivity of novel research therefore allows us to expand our horizon beyond the realms of known domains. [ 2 ]

Having defined novelty in research, one of the most common mistakes that researchers commit is confusing novelty with originality. These terms are often used interchangeably. Originality implies the genuineness of the work and signifying that the said work has not been copied from any other source. Originality can always be examined by plagiarism checkers, and data is often analysed for duplication or fabrication only if there exists a certain doubt regarding its factuality. A study, therefore, can be mutually exclusive i.e. novel, but not original, or it can be original but not novel. It is the latter that reviewers and editors encounter most often.

The most common scenario encountered in anaesthesia related manuscripts that lacks novelty is the substitution of the same anaesthetic technique to different surgical procedures or patient populations (based on gender or age), with no expected change in the result. Here, the hypothesis and study designs are almost identical; however, the agents are replaced with different ones. A classic example is the comparison of the duration of analgesia with a longer acting analgesic or that of a local anaesthetic with a shorter one. The intrinsic properties of a drug are already well known, and, irrespective of it being an abdominal surgery or a limb surgery, the drugs are going to behave according to their pharmacological properties. Similarly, modern airway devices, such as video laryngoscopes, have conclusively been proven to be better aids than the conventional ones. A comparison of any new laryngoscope would definitely be a novel idea, in terms of whether it outperforms the existing device. If a certain number of studies, systematic reviews, or metanalyses have already been published on that particular device or drug, the study undertaken cannot be considered novel unless the results of the aforementioned study, utilising sound scientific principles, actually challenge or contradict the existing ideas.

Another common scenario faced by the reviewers or editors is the anaesthetic management of common or uncommon syndromes or diseases. They are often well described in literature, but when managed as per the existing guidelines and expected challenges they do not constitute novelty. A case report is novel and worth publishing if an unforeseen or unanticipated event has occurred or the case has been managed in a unique or unconventional manner or significant innovative skills or equipment have been employed. However, due caution has to be exercised as this should not lead the researcher to be overtly adventurous or show undue bravado by going against the principles of patient safety.

Now here lies the contradiction. We have been harping on novelty, introducing new ideas, and challenging old fixed ideas when conducting research and reporting cases. However, at the same time, due caution must be exercised, and one must not to be adventurous, unconventional, or bold. There is a fine line of distinction between these two. Herein comes the role of ethics, a separate topic of discussion altogether.

Research or advancement may not always be novel just by intervention or experimentation. Theoretical or hypothesis testing may also contribute paradigm-changing findings. Some of these may include thought-based experiments, rectifying or logical rearrangement of existing knowledge, re-evaluating space and time, utilising principles of philosophy, and analysing already existing data from a new and different perspective. [ 3 ] A thorough literature search is pivotal for designing a novel research project as it helps to understand known facts and gaps. An attempt at bridging identified research gaps adds to the novelty of the study. [ 2 ]

Another aspect of novel research is technological advancement. Most research starts from an idea, a thought, or an observation that further leads to hypothesis building, experimentation, data collection, analysis, and, finally, principle building. Technological advancement may stem from any of these phases. Novelty in research propels the industry to excel and outdo itself. [ 4 ]

Can novelty in research be measured? The answer is a resounding yes. Traditionally, it has been measured through peer reviews and by applying bibliometric measures such as citation or text data, keeping in mind their inherent limitations. However, word embedding is a new technique that can reliably measure novelty and even predict future citations. However, this is currently limited by publicly available word-embedding libraries and its high costs. [ 5 ]

To the average author and reader, novelty adds to their knowledge and makes them aware of complications that they may encounter. It offers a way out by conventional or different measures, within the realm of scientific, ethical and principles of social justice, should they get stuck, keeping in mind the quote of Hippocrates: ‘ Primum non nocere’ ( First, do no harm ).

There is no denying that the Digital Era has impacted every aspect of the world, including academics and research. Many of these changes have brought significant advantages in global development, such as the ability to communicate with someone regardless of their location or to expand the reach of a business to engage a wide customer base. So much success has been created because of technology, but it has also brought a few disadvantages.

The global and competitive aspect of research means that scholars have to work a bit harder to stand out from the competition in their field if they want to make impacts and obtain research funding grants. To do this, innovation must be combined with novel approaches. But what defines novelty isn’t always cut and dried in the academic landscape.

Defining Novelty

For many people, the word “novelty” is associated with the newest toy on the shelves at Christmas. The connotation includes ideas of something that is superficial but shiny, exciting but quickly discarded after the initial “novelty” wears off. In research, this term means something completely different.

To a researcher and a funding source, a novel idea means something that is unique in the field or scope you’re analyzing. It can be a new methodology or a new design that sets the stage for new knowledge. It could be an approach that purposefully attempts to add more understanding to the current knowledge base. 

In general, it’s a characteristic of research that takes a topic that has already been the focus of experiments in the past and puts a new and original spin on it. Scholars can do this by changing factors like the design itself, the location or demographics of previous studies, or shifting the database entirely. The best way to know if your idea is novel or not is to do in-depth preliminary research and compare your idea with what is already out there on the subject.

Arguments Against Novelty and For Tradition

Scholars today find themselves facing an extra obstacle in the quest for publishing their work in a prestigious journal. Many of today’s publishing companies are looking for novelty over authenticity and expertise. This is because research journals want to publish work that is going to be cited, which is usually a topic that is new and exciting.

The arguments against this often support the claim that many of these “novel” studies don’t have enough support backing them because they focus on the “shiny” aspects of the research rather than the data that backs up the outcome. Funders award grants based on innovative ideas, but then the research that is necessary to substantiate these novel approaches and build on those precarious foundations is pushed to the side. When a grant request has ideas such as “innovative” and “novel” in it, it’s more likely to be approved, and then published, than those that build on those same approaches.

Why a Balanced Approach is Necessary

Some researchers argue that this push for novelty is exactly part of the reason why the field of science is currently in a reproducibility crisis. The focus on getting novel articles published has taken over the in-depth analysis of research in peer review. A balanced approach is required in order to ensure that progress continues to be made in all fields, but that the work published is put through rigorous review processes to ensure replicability and legitimacy.

When scholars see the reward that comes with inflated claims and specific adjectives to define their research as novel, the temptation arises to compromise the neutrality of the process. In the rush for reward, there is neglect in providing evidence to support each claim.

On the other hand, some journals are attempting a counterbalance to prevent weak articles. They want to ensure every idea that’s even remotely incomplete is addressed, which isn’t always feasible and can even be a deterrent to the reader. If a basic idea should be widely understood by someone reading the journal, the fact that the author lays it out anyway can be seen as condescending or a waste of the reader’s time.

Instead, a balanced approach is necessary, in which the editors attempt to scout out the long-term impact of a novel idea and how it might affect future studies. These newer ideas aren’t always backed with solid evidence at the time. It can take years for this to develop. But as a whole, robust work needs to be balanced with reproducible research.

• Afghanistan
• Åland Islands
• American Samoa
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Bouvet Island
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Cayman Islands
• Central African Republic
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
• Cook Islands
• Côte d'Ivoire
• Curacao !Curaçao
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• Faroe Islands
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• French Southern Territories
• Guinea-Bissau
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Isle of Man
• Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of)
• Korea (Republic of)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liechtenstein
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia (Federated States of)
• Moldova (Republic of)
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Norfolk Island
• North Macedonia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Palestine, State of
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Martin (French part)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• South Sudan
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turkmenistan
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• United States of America
• United States Minor Outlying Islands
• Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
• Virgin Islands (British)
• Virgin Islands (U.S.)
• Wallis and Futuna
• Western Sahara

How To Write A Research Paper

Find Sources For A Research Paper

How to Find Sources For a Research Paper | A Guide

10 min read

Published on: Mar 26, 2024

Last updated on: Mar 25, 2024

People also read

How to Write a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Proposal For a Research Paper in 10 Steps

A Comprehensive Guide to Creating a Research Paper Outline

Types of Research - Methodologies and Characteristics

300+ Engaging Research Paper Topics to Get You Started

Interesting Psychology Research Topics & Ideas

Qualitative Research - Types, Methods & Examples

Understanding Quantitative Research - Definition, Types, Examples, And More

Research Paper Example - Examples for Different Formats

How To Start A Research Paper - Steps With Examples

How to Write an Abstract That Captivates Your Readers

How To Write a Literature Review for a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

Types of Qualitative Research Methods - An Overview

Understanding Qualitative vs. Quantitative Research - A Complete Guide

How to Cite a Research Paper in Different Citation Styles

Easy Sociology Research Topics for Your Next Project

200+ Outstanding History Research Paper Topics With Expert Tips

How To Write a Hypothesis in a Research Paper | Steps & Examples

How to Write an Introduction for a Research Paper - A Step-by-Step Guide

How to Write a Good Research Paper Title

How to Write a Conclusion for a Research Paper in 3 Simple Steps

How to Write an Abstract For a Research Paper with Examples

How To Write a Thesis For a Research Paper Step by Step

How to Write a Discussion For a Research Paper | Objectives, Steps & Examples

How to Write the Results Section of a Research Paper - Structure and Tips

How to Write a Problem Statement for a Research Paper in 6 Steps

How To Write The Methods Section of a Research Paper Step-by-Step

Share this article

Research papers are an essential part of academic life, but one of the most challenging aspects can be finding credible sources to support your arguments. 

With the vast amount of information available online, it's easy to feel overwhelmed. However, by following some simple steps, you can streamline the process of finding reliable sources for your research paper . 

In this guide, we'll break down the process into easy-to-follow steps to help you find the best sources for your paper.

On This Page On This Page -->

Step 1: Define Your Topic and Research Questions

Before you venture into your quest for sources, it's essential to have a clear understanding of your research topic and the specific questions you aim to address. Define the scope of your paper and identify keywords and key concepts that will guide your search for relevant sources.

Step 2: Utilize Academic Databases

Academic databases are treasure troves of scholarly articles, research papers, and academic journals covering a wide range of subjects. Institutions often provide access to these databases through their libraries. Some popular academic databases include:

• IEEE Xplore
• Google Scholar

These databases allow you to search for peer-reviewed articles and academic papers related to your topic. 

Use advanced search features to narrow down your results based on publication date, author, and keywords .

Academic Resources Classified by Discipline

Here's a breakdown of prominent databases categorized by academic discipline:

Step 3: Explore Library Catalogs

Your university or local library's catalog is another valuable resource for finding sources. Library catalogs contain books, periodicals, and other materials that may not be available online. 

Use the catalog's search function to locate relevant books, journals, and other materials that can contribute to your research.

Step 4: Consult Bibliographies and References

When you find a relevant source, take note of its bibliography or make a list of sources for the research paper. These lists often contain citations to other works that may be useful for your research. 

By exploring the references cited in a particular source, you can uncover additional resources and expand your understanding of the topic.

Step 5: Boolean Operators for Effective Searches

Boolean operators are words or symbols used to refine search queries by defining the relationships between search terms. The three primary operators include "AND," which narrows searches by requiring all terms to be present; "OR," which broadens searches by including either term or both; and "NOT," which excludes specific terms to refine results further. 

Most databases provide advanced search features for seamless application of Boolean logic.

Step 6: Consider Primary Sources 

Depending on your research topic, primary sources such as interviews, surveys, archival documents, and original data sets can provide valuable insights and support for your arguments. 

Primary sources offer firsthand accounts and original perspectives on historical events, social phenomena, and scientific discoveries.

Step 7: Evaluate the Credibility of Sources

Not all sources are created equal, and it's crucial to evaluate the credibility and reliability of the information you encounter. 

Consider the author's credentials, the publication venue, and whether the source is peer-reviewed. Look for evidence of bias or conflicts of interest that may undermine the source's credibility.

Step 8: Keep Track of Your Sources

As you gather sources for your research paper, maintain a systematic record of the materials you consult.  Keep track of bibliographic information, including author names, publication dates, titles, and page numbers . This information will be invaluable when citing your sources and creating a bibliography or works cited page.

Other Online Sources

In addition to academic databases and library catalogs, exploring popular online sources can provide valuable insights and perspectives on your research topic.  Here are some types of online sources you can consider:

Websites hosted by reputable organizations, institutions, and experts (such as the New York Times) can offer valuable information and analysis on a wide range of topics. Look for websites belonging to universities, research institutions, government agencies, and established non-profit organizations.

Crowdsourced Encyclopedias like Wikipedia

While Wikipedia can provide a broad overview of a topic and lead you to other sources, it's essential to verify the information found there with more authoritative sources. 

Use Wikipedia as a starting point for your research, but rely on peer-reviewed journal articles and academic sources for in-depth analysis and evidence.

Tips for Assessing the Credibility of Online Sources

When using online sources, it's important to exercise caution and critically evaluate the credibility and reliability of the information you find. Here are some tips for assessing the credibility of online sources:

• Check the Domain Extension: Look for websites with domain extensions that indicate credibility. URLs ending in .edu are educational resources, while URLs ending in .gov are government-related resources. These sites often provide reliable and authoritative information.
• Look for DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers): DOIs are unique alphanumeric strings assigned to scholarly articles and indicate that the article has been published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal. Finding a DOI can help you assess the scholarly rigor of the source.
• Evaluate the Authorship and Credentials: Consider the qualifications and expertise of the author or organization behind the website or blog. Look for information about the author's credentials, affiliations, and expertise in the subject matter.
• Consider the Currency and Relevance: Assess how up-to-date the information is and whether it aligns with the scope and focus of your research. Look for recent publications and timely analyses that reflect current trends and developments in the field.

Wrapping it up!

Finding sources for your research paper may seem like a challenge, but by following these steps, you can locate credible sources to support your arguments and enhance the quality of your paper. 

By approaching the research process systematically and critically evaluating the information you encounter, you can produce a well-researched and compelling research paper.

If you are struggling with finding credible sources or have time constraints, do not hesitate to seek writing help for your research papers . CollegeEssay.org has professional writers ready to assist you. 

Connect with our essay writing service now and receive expert guidance and support to elevate your research paper to the next level.

Cathy A. (Law)

For more than five years now, Cathy has been one of our most hardworking authors on the platform. With a Masters degree in mass communication, she knows the ins and outs of professional writing. Clients often leave her glowing reviews for being an amazing writer who takes her work very seriously.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• Privacy Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Terms of Use
• Refunds & Cancellations
• Our Writers
• Success Stories
• Our Guarantees
• Affiliate Program
• Referral Program
• AI Essay Writer

Disclaimer: All client orders are completed by our team of highly qualified human writers. The essays and papers provided by us are not to be used for submission but rather as learning models only.

March 27, 2024

How Animal Brains Tell Friends from Strangers

A small section of the mouse brain’s hippocampus uses specific neural codes to denote social familiarity and identity

By Ingrid Wickelgren

Matthijs Kuijpers/Alamy Stock Photo

You see a woman on the street who looks familiar—but you can’t remember how you know her. Your brain cannot attach any previous experiences to this person. Hours later, you suddenly recall the party at a friend’s house where you met her, and you realize who she is.

In a new study in mice, researchers have discovered the place in the brain that is responsible for both types of familiarity—vague recognition and complete recollection. Both, moreover, are represented by two distinct neural codes. The findings, which appeared on February 20 in Neuron, showcase the use of advanced computer algorithms to understand how the brain encodes concepts such as social novelty and individual identity, says study co-author Steven Siegelbaum, a neuroscientist at the Mortimer B. Zuckerman Mind Brain Behavior Institute at Columbia University.

The brain’s signature for strangers turns out to be simpler than the one used for old friends—which makes sense, Siegelbaum says, given the vastly different memory requirements for the two relationships. “Where you were, what you were doing, when you were doing it, who else [was there]—the memory of a familiar individual is a much richer memory,” Siegelbaum says. “If you’re meeting a stranger, there’s nothing to recollect.”

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

The action occurs in a small sliver of a brain region called the hippocampus , known for its importance in forming memories. The sliver in question, known as CA2, seems to specialize in a certain kind of memory used to recall relationships. “[The new work] really emphasizes the importance of this brain area to social processing,” at least in mice, says Serena Dudek, a neuroscientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, who was not involved in the study.

A student in Siegelbaum’s lab helped establish this role about a decade ago, when he developed a genetic method for silencing CA2 in mice. With CA2 out of commission, mice could no longer tell an unfamiliar mouse from a littermate. The memory deficit was limited to social contexts as opposed to, say, memory for objects or locations that had no social meaning: the mice could still recognize familiar objects, for instance, or navigate a maze. “The surprise was that this one particular subregion was so critical in the mice for social memory,” Siegelbaum says.

But it was still not clear how the cells in the region were performing this function. “The question was: What’s going on in the brain of these mice in the CA2 region?” Siegelbaum says. To answer this question, Siegelbaum’s team had to devise a way to record neural activity in CA2 during social interactions—and to analyze that activity.

In 2018 then graduate student Lara Boyle began tackling the problem of recording the goings-on in CA2 using a miniscope, a type of microscope small enough to be worn like a hat on a mouse’s head. Boyle, a co-author of the new paper, endowed CA2 neurons with a protein that glows in the presence of calcium, the mineral that rushes into neurons when the cells are active. She positioned the microscope to detect the glow, measure its intensity and convert the measurements to electrical signals to be processed by a computer.

The apparatus recorded the activity of 50 to 60 neurons at a time as a mouse interacted with either two unfamiliar mice, two littermates or a littermate and a stranger. The mice in each of these pairs were contained separately in small wire “cups” on the left and right sides of the cage. Comparing the brain activity during the interactions, the researchers hoped, would reveal how the mouse recognized other mice as strangers or littermates or distinguished them as individuals. As it happened, however, the scientists could not make enough sense of the signals at first to determine how the brain was making these calls.

So in 2020 Boyle and Siegelbaum teamed up with Zuckerman neuroscientist Stefano Fusi and postdoctoral fellow Lorenzo Posani, who built a “linear decoder,” software that could decipher the glut of neural patterns. As reported in the new paper, the decoder processed the responses of individual mice to ferret out how the brain encrypts social familiarity and identity. The mouse brain uses a “very special code” for representing other mice, Fusi says.

The decoder uncovered a neural signature for the concepts of novelty and familiarity that applied across various pairs of both newly encountered and familiar mice. “A [proverbial] light would shine somewhere in the brain that says ’novelty’ or ‘familiarity,’ independent of the identities of these mice,” Siegelbaum says. “That was probably one of the biggest aha! moments of the study.”

What’s more, the better a mouse’s CA2 neurons distinguished between a novel and a familiar animal, the more adept the animal seemed to be at telling the mice in the cups apart. Because mice like novelty, they prefer to spend time with a stranger rather than a littermate. So the animals whose brains had the sharpest novelty detectors, as identified by the linear decoder, spent the most time sniffing the novel mouse relative to the familiar one.

The researchers also found neural patterns that enabled the mice to distinguish two familiar animals or two strangers. “You can decode with some level above chance not just whether [a mouse is perceiving] a novel animal or a familiar animal but [also] the identity of that animal,” Dudek says.

And the way the brain captures that identity is different for strangers than it is for familiar animals, Siegelbaum says. The researchers determined, for example, that the neural code for social identity depended on the location of the mice in the cups to a greater degree when those mice were familiar, consistent with the idea that memories of known individuals are rooted in a place, among other details. By contrast, no such details are attached to strangers, so the code is simpler, he says.

The principles behind these newly discovered brain signatures could inform better machine-learning systems, Fusi says. At present, computers must be trained on new information in very specific ways, or they suffer “catastrophic forgetting” of previous knowledge. “If you want [a machine-learning system] to continually learn for an entire life, we don’t have a way of doing that,” Fusi says. “Machines don’t learn in a natural environment like we do.” The new understanding of how the animal brain encodes social information, he says, could spawn ideas for solving the problem of catastrophic forgetting.

The study’s results also represent a small step toward a complete understanding of a social memory, says Thomas McHugh, a neuroscientist at the RIKEN Center for Brain Science in Japan, who was not involved in the research. “What we really want to understand as a field is how a memory’s formed that integrates all these components—who we are interacting with, where we are, what we’re doing—the contents of an event or episode,” McHugh says. “This [study] gives us some thoughts on how we might do that.”

CA2 is unlikely to act alone in this process because it connects to other brain regions that also play roles in social learning, memory and behavior, Dudek says. But if the findings in mice apply to humans, the work could help researchers uncover the roots of social difficulties in people, such as those that occur in schizophrenia and autism. Scientists could, for example, look for changes in the neural code of CA2 neurons in genetic mouse models of these conditions. “It’s important to have this baseline data to understand what changes in these models” as a step to understanding what changes in humans, McHugh says.

From there, researchers might find ways to normalize that circuitry to improve social memory, Siegelbaum says. “How many different disorders of memory are there?” he adds. “Do they all involve the same type of changes in neural processing, or are there more specific changes that are associated with different forms of disease?” Having a better way to classify these changes may lead to more targeted treatments, Siegelbaum says.

Analytics Insight

Platforms to Find the Latest AI/ML Research Papers

AI/ML research paper platforms: Exploring arXiv, Hacker News, Github, and Paper With Code

In the rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), staying abreast of the latest research is crucial for researchers, practitioners, and enthusiasts alike. Fortunately, several platforms serve as beacons guiding seekers of knowledge through this vast sea of information. From preprint repositories to interactive code-sharing platforms, these platforms offer diverse avenues for accessing cutting-edge research in the field. Let’s explore some of the key platforms where one can find the latest AI/ML research papers.

At the forefront of disseminating research findings across various disciplines, arXiv stands as a pillar in the scientific community. AI and ML researchers often utilize arXiv as a primary platform to share their work before formal publication. This preprint repository enables researchers to access groundbreaking studies, theoretical insights, and experimental results promptly. By regularly visiting arXiv, individuals can stay updated on the latest advancements, contributing to the continuous growth of knowledge in AI/ML.

Hacker News:

For those seeking a more dynamic and interactive experience, Hacker News provides a platform where the tech community congregates to discuss emerging trends and share noteworthy articles. With dedicated sections for AI, ML, and other technology topics, Hacker News serves as a valuable hub for discovering the latest research papers, engaging in insightful discussions, and networking with like-minded individuals. By actively participating in discussions on Hacker News, enthusiasts can gain diverse perspectives and deepen their understanding of current developments in AI/ML.

Emergent Mind:

As AI increasingly intersects with neuroscience and cognitive science, platforms like Emergent Mind offer a unique perspective on the field’s interdisciplinary nature. Focusing on the symbiotic relationship between AI and human cognition, Emergent Mind provides insights into how advancements in AI technology are shaping our understanding of the mind and vice versa. Researchers can explore thought-provoking articles, research papers, and discussions on Emergent Mind, gaining a deeper appreciation for the cognitive underpinnings of AI/ML research.

In the realm of practical implementation and experimentation, Github emerges as a powerhouse for hosting code repositories related to AI/ML projects. Researchers can not only access research papers but also find accompanying code implementations, datasets, and tools on Github. This fosters reproducibility and facilitates the adoption of new techniques, enabling practitioners to translate theoretical advancements into tangible applications. By leveraging the collaborative nature of Github, researchers can collaborate on projects, contribute to open-source initiatives, and accelerate innovation in the AI/ML community.

Paper With Code:

Bridging the gap between theory and practice, Paper With Code serves as a valuable resource for researchers seeking both the theoretical foundations and practical implementations of AI/ML papers. By linking research papers with their corresponding code implementations, Paper With Code enables researchers to explore the intricacies of algorithms, reproduce experimental results, and benchmark their own implementations against state-of-the-art models. This platform promotes transparency, reproducibility, and knowledge sharing, ultimately advancing the field of AI/ML research.

In conclusion, navigating the ever-expanding landscape of AI/ML research requires access to diverse platforms that cater to different aspects of the field. Whether one seeks theoretical insights, practical implementations, interdisciplinary perspectives, or engaging discussions, these platforms offer invaluable resources for staying informed and driving innovation forward. By harnessing the collective wisdom and collaborative spirit of these platforms, researchers can navigate the sea of knowledge with confidence, propelling the field of AI/ML towards new horizons of discovery and impact.

Disclaimer: Any financial and crypto market information given on Analytics Insight are sponsored articles, written for informational purpose only and is not an investment advice. The readers are further advised that Crypto products and NFTs are unregulated and can be highly risky. There may be no regulatory recourse for any loss from such transactions. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions. The decision to read hereinafter is purely a matter of choice and shall be construed as an express undertaking/guarantee in favour of Analytics Insight of being absolved from any/ all potential legal action, or enforceable claims. We do not represent nor own any cryptocurrency, any complaints, abuse or concerns with regards to the information provided shall be immediately informed here .

You May Also Like

Top 10 Robotic Project Ideas for Engineering Students in 2024

XRP Lists on more exchanges, Tether partners with Binance and GameStop Memes Gains 2 millions in 24 hours!

Top 10 Cryptocurrency Jobs with over US$100,000 Salary in 2023

Exclusive Interview with Karan Mehta, Co-founder & CTO of Kissht

Analytics Insight® is an influential platform dedicated to insights, trends, and opinion from the world of data-driven technologies. It monitors developments, recognition, and achievements made by Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Analytics companies across the globe.

• Select Language:
• Privacy Policy
• Content Licensing
• Terms & Conditions
• Submit an Interview

Special Editions

• Dec – Crypto Weekly Vol-1
• 40 Under 40 Innovators
• Women In Technology
• Market Reports
• AI Glossary
• Infographics

Latest Issue

Disclaimer: Any financial and crypto market information given on Analytics Insight is written for informational purpose only and is not an investment advice. Conduct your own research by contacting financial experts before making any investment decisions, more information here .

Second Menu

'Pretending to grow forests in the desert': New research questions integrity in safeguard mechanism scheme

A major Australian study has found some of the nation's biggest polluters are meeting their emissions obligations using carbon credits that have not actually resulted in emissions reductions.

Almost a third of projects under Australia's carbon credit scheme did little to nothing to reduce emissions despite costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, the researchers found.

Andrew Macintosh, one of the lead authors of the paper and an environment law and policy professor at the Australian National University first sounded the alarm two years ago, calling the carbon market "largely a sham".

His calls were rejected by a government-commissioned review, but Professor Macintosh said the new research shows further evidence that human-induced regeneration – a core part of the Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) scheme – hasn't worked.

"The data is telling us very clearly that the credits that are being issued are in no way shape or form being matched by the abatement that these projects are actually generating," He told the ABC.

Researchers monitored 182 Human Induced Regeneration (HIR) projects, which make up about 30 per cent of all ACCUs and have cost taxpayers nearly $300 million over their lifetime.

They found many of the projects to grow native forests were claiming to be regenerating them in uncleared desert and semi-desert areas.

According to the study, 80 per cent of those projects experienced either no change, or negative change to their tree cover between 2013 when first registered, and June 2022, despite receiving nearly 23 million credits.

Researchers say study calls into question emissions results of biggest emitters

In October 2023 the government banned the registration of new HIR projects, but existing projects are still operating and generating carbon credits.

The research group's claims would have significant implications for the government's safeguard mechanism, the emissions cap placed on heavy emitters that forces them to either lower their emissions or buy credits to abate them.

The safeguard mechanism applies to facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions a year in the mining, oil and gas, manufacturing, transport and waste sectors.

Professor Macintosh said the ACCU scheme was "severely lacking in integrity" and jeopardised the integrity of the safeguard mechanism.

"Most of the [safeguard mechanism] entities that are covered by the [ACCU] scheme will meet their obligations by buying carbon credits and surrendering them, rather than reducing their own emissions," Professor Macintosh said.

"That would be fine if the carbon credits reflected real, additional and permanent abatement but what our results are saying is they're not."

HIR projects received 37 million credits to June 2023, nearing a third of the issuances under the scheme, and covering a total area of around 42 million hectares.

The researchers found an increase of just 1.8 per cent in tree cover across those projects, based on satellite data since the projects were registered.

Professor Macintosh said those projects also didn't show a marked difference in regeneration from other nearby areas outside the credit scheme.

"We also compared the trends of tree cover inside the projects that have been credited to what's happening in comparison areas," he said.

"The primary driver is not the controlling of grazing areas but something else, and that something else is very likely to be rainfall."

Recommendations for ACCU monitor progressing

In 2022 after Professor Macintosh blew the whistle on the carbon credit scheme, the government ordered a review led by the former national chief scientist Ian Chubb.

That review, released in January last year, dismissed claims the scheme lacked integrity . 

It said it disagreed with Professor Macintosh's claims the level of emissions reduction was overstated, and that the carbon credits scheme was not effective.

But the review did make a suite of recommendations, including a new integrity committee to monitor the scheme, which the government has agreed to establish.

Professor Macintosh has always questioned the methodology of that review.

"The main problem with the Chubb review is that they didn't analyse the performance of a single project to inform their decision or their conclusion that there wasn't a problem with over-crediting," he said.

Professor Macintosh has declared he has a competing interest as a non-executive director of Paraway Pastoral Company, which has projects that use Australia's offset scheme but does not have any HIR projects.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen reiterated that while he understood Professor Macintosh's disagreement with Professor Chubb's findings, he emphasised that Professor Macintosh's own findings were not supported by Professor Chubb.

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Critics say they're left 'scratching their heads' at findings from carbon credit review.

These companies claim to be 'carbon neutral'. But the devil is in the details

• Climate Change
• Emissions Trading
• Environmental Impact
• Environmental Management
• Environmental Policy
• Federal Government

• 17.2k views
• Planning to Write

Q: How will I know if my research is novel?

I am working on image processing. How will I know if my work is novel? How can I validate my results?

Asked by S Pearline on 14 Jul, 2018

The best way to identify the novelty of your work is to carry out an exhaustive literature search and identify what is already published. You can review published articles in your field to understand how novel your work is. Sometimes, there will be a lot of similar research; however, the main question or hypothesis may be different, or perhaps the methodology used to answer the same question is different.  

Validating your results will also depend on what is already published. For example, you may need to validate a new methodology with existing techniques to ensure accuracy of the new methodology. Further, your discussion section should include comparisons of your findings with other similar published results. These comparisons will help establish and validate your findings.

Related reading:

• What is novelty in research?
• How can I judge the novelty of my study?

Answered by Editage Insights on 20 Jul, 2018

• Upvote this Answer

This content belongs to the Conducting Research Stage

Confirm that you would also like to sign up for free personalized email coaching for this stage.

Trending Searches

• Statement of the problem
• Background of study
• Scope of the study
• Types of qualitative research
• Rationale of the study
• Concept paper
• Literature review
• Introduction in research
• Under "Editor Evaluation"
• Ethics in research

Recent Searches

• Review paper
• Responding to reviewer comments
• Predatory publishers
• Scope and delimitations
• Open access
• Plagiarism in research
• Journal selection tips
• Editor assigned
• Types of articles
• "Reject and Resubmit" status
• Decision in process
• Conflict of interest