Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates how combinations of theoretical, methodological, and results-based novelty impact scientific impact, using a dataset of 15,322 Nature Communications articles. The authors classified articles along these three novelty dimensions using DeepSeek-V3 on the introduction sections and measured impact via citation counts. Surprisingly, they found that articles with only results-based novelty had higher citation counts and were more likely to be in the top 1% or 10% of cited papers compared to articles exhibiting all three types of novelty.
Results-based novelty alone beats combined theoretical, methodological, and results-based novelty when it comes to scientific impact, challenging the assumption that more novelty is always better.
Scientific novelty drives advances at the research frontier, yet it is also associated with heightened uncertainty and potential resistance from incumbent paradigms, leading to complex patterns of scientific impact. Prior studies have primarily ex-amined the relationship between a single dimension of novelty -- such as theoreti-cal, methodological, or results-based novelty -- and scientific impact. However, because scientific novelty is inherently multidimensional, focusing on isolated dimensions may obscure how different types of novelty jointly shape impact. Consequently, we know little about how combinations of novelty types influence scientific impact. To this end, we draw on a dataset of 15,322 articles published in Nature Communications. Using the DeepSeek-V3 model, we classify articles into three novelty dimensions based on the content of their Introduction sections: theoretical novelty, methodological novelty, and results-based novelty. These dimensions may coexist within the same article, forming distinct novelty configura-tions. Scientific impact is measured using five-year citation counts and indicators of whether an article belongs to the top 1% or top 10% highly cited papers. Descriptive results indicate that results-based novelty alone and the simultaneous presence of all three novelty types are the dominant configurations in the sample. Regression results further show that articles with results-based novelty only re-ceive significantly more citations and are more likely to rank among the top 1% and top 10% highly cited papers than articles exhibiting all three novelty types. These findings advance our understanding of how multidimensional novelty configurations shape knowledge diffusion.
