Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study analyzes 15,328 papers from Nature Communications to explore the cognitive gap between authors and peer reviewers regarding the novelty of academic work. The findings reveal that while both groups prioritize result-oriented innovation, reviewers take a broader evaluative approach, leading to a nuanced relationship between promotional language and perceived novelty. Notably, highly innovative papers benefit from strong promotional language, while its impact is less pronounced for papers with extreme levels of novelty, highlighting the complexities of academic self-promotion in peer review contexts.
Authors' promotional language can significantly sway peer reviewers' perceptions of novelty, but only in the murky middle ground of innovation.
Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.
