BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Memento EPFL//
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Seminar by Prof. Paula Stephan\, Georgia State University
DTSTART:20171113T120000
DTEND:20171113T133000
DTSTAMP:20260924T100538Z
UID:f4e35200c3b42cf1665135986a1574082260b9aa419f8fcb0a0e3b40
CATEGORIES:Conferences - Seminars
DESCRIPTION:Prof. Paula Stephan\, Georgia State University\n"Bias against 
 Novelty in Science: A Cautionary Tale for Users of Bibliometric Indicators
 "\n\nAbstract\nResearch which explores unchartered waters has a high poten
 tial for major impact but also carries a higher uncertainty of having impa
 ct.  Such explorative research is often described as taking a novel appro
 ach.  This study examines the complex relationship between pursuing a nov
 el approach and impact.  Viewing scientific research as a combinatorial p
 rocess\, we measure novelty in science by examining whether a published pa
 per makes first time ever combinations of referenced journals\, taking int
 o account the difficulty of making such combinations.  We apply this newl
 y developed measure of novelty to all Web of Science research articles pub
 lished in 2001 across all scientific disciplines.  We find that highly no
 vel 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% hi
 ghly cited paper in the long run\, to inspire follow on highly cited resea
 rch\, and to be cited in a broader set of disciplines and in disciplines t
 hat are more distant from their “home” field.  At the same time\, nov
 el research is also more risky\, reflected by a higher variance in its cit
 ation performance.  We also find strong evidence of delayed recognition o
 f novel papers as novel papers are less likely to be top cited when using 
 short time-windows.  In addition\, we find that novel research is signifi
 cantly more highly cited in “foreign” fields but not in their “home
 ” field.  Finally\, novel papers are published in journals with a lower
  Impact Factor\, compared with non-novel papers\, ceteris paribus.  These
  findings suggest that science policy\, in particular funding decisions wh
 ich rely on bibliometric indicators based on short-term citation counts an
 d Journal Impact Factors\, may be biased against “high risk/high gain”
  novel research.  The findings also caution against a mono-disciplinary a
 pproach in peer review to assess the true value of novel research.
LOCATION:ODY 4 03\, VIP room https://plan.epfl.ch/?room=ODY403
STATUS:CONFIRMED
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR