ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- A conceptual methodological approach for addressing complex interdisciplinary challenges.Royal Society open science · 2026Article
- A bibliometric and thematic analysis of the 100 most cited articles on posterior shoulder instability.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2026Review
- The institutional dynamics of inequality for women inventors who break with conventional thinking.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- The Evolution of Same-sex Sexual Behavior: Using Old Theory to Answer New Questions.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Review
- How to report neurotechnology and artificial intelligence studies in epilepsy: Peer-review-inspired recommendations.Epilepsia open · 2025Article
- Geographical diversity of peer reviewers shapes author success.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- The gender gap in scholarly self-promotion on social media.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Evaluating interdisciplinary research: Disparate outcomes for topic and knowledge base.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Novelty, Consistency, Transparency: The Trilemma of Psychological Sciences and its Consequences on Open Science Practices.International review of social psychology · 2025Article
- Use of Promotional Language in Grant Applications and Grant Success.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Machine learning misclassification networks reveal a citation advantage of interdisciplinary publications only in high-impact journals.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Promotional language and the adoption of innovative ideas in science.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Elements of successful NIH grant applications.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Identify novel elements of knowledge with word embedding.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.