ArticlePloS one2026
The field factor: Industry publishing contribution and novelty in science.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Firms frequently publish scientific articles as part of their R&D initiatives, motivated by commercial objectives. However, the extent of industry involvement in publishing varies across different scientific fields and can have implications for research within those fields. Novelty in science is associated with scientific and technological breakthroughs. In this paper, we examine a field-level antecedent of novelty-the extent of industry publishing contribution to a field-and its association with two key aspects of recombinant novelty of publications: the occurrence of a novel recombination (novelty occurrence), and the degree of novelty, captured through novelty breadth, reflecting the scope of novel integration of knowledge elements, and novelty distance, reflecting the extremity of conceptual divergence among novel knowledge recombinations. Drawing on a longitudinal dataset of 11.1 million publications across 1639 STEM fields from 2000 to 2014, we find that greater industry publishing contribution within a scientific field is associated with higher odds of novelty occurrence and greater novelty breadth, but lower novelty distance. Notably, university is an important driver of our results across the three dimensions of novelty highlighting the importance of industry publishing contribution in shaping the novelty of entire fields. In addition, we find that top-ranked research institutions appear better able to manage the trade-off between novelty distance and other forms of novelty as industry publishing contribution increases. Our findings emphasize the need for policymakers in encouraging and preserving more exploratory forms of novelty in fields with substantial industry publishing, where such exploration is particularly valuable.
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.