IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nas/journl/v119y2022pe2118046119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals

Author

Listed:
  • Misha Teplitskiy

    (a School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;; b Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;)

  • Hao Peng

    (a School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;)

  • Andrea Blasco

    (b Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;; c Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163;)

  • Karim R. Lakhani

    (b Laboratory for Innovation Science at Harvard, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138;; c Harvard Business School, Boston, MA 02163;; d Digital, Data and Design Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138)

Abstract

There are long-standing concerns that scientific institutions, which often rely on peer review to select the best projects, tend to select conservative ones and thereby discourage novel research. Using peer review data from 49 journals in the life and physical sciences, we examined whether less novel manuscripts were likelier to be accepted for publication. Measuring the novelty of manuscripts as atypical combinations of journals in their reference lists, we found no evidence of conservatism. Across journals, more novel manuscripts were more likely to be accepted, even when peer reviewers were similarly enthusiastic. The findings suggest that peer review is not inherently conservative, and help explain why researchers continue to do novel work.

Suggested Citation

  • Misha Teplitskiy & Hao Peng & Andrea Blasco & Karim R. Lakhani, 2022. "Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119(47), pages 2118046119-, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:nas:journl:v:119:y:2022:p:e2118046119
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/119/47/e2118046119.full
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:nas:journl:v:119:y:2022:p:e2118046119. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Eric Cain (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.pnas.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.