What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?
What Types of Novelty Are Most Disruptive?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/00031224231168074
复制
发表时间：
2021-08
影响因子：
9.1
通讯作者：
E. Leahey;Jina Lee;Russell J. Funk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
E. Leahey;Jina Lee;Russell J. Funk
新颖性和冲击性是科技企业的关键特征。经典的科学变革理论区分不同类型的新奇事物，强调新思想如何与以前的工作相互作用，并影响未来的知识流动。然而，即使是最近开发的新颖性衡量标准也仍然是单向度的，继续依赖引用计数只能捕捉到科学影响的数量，而不是本质。为了更好地协调理论和实证工作，我们关注不同类型的新颖性(新结果、新理论和新方法)，以及一项科学成果是具有巩固形式的影响力(使人们重新关注基础思想)还是具有破坏性的影响形式(促使后续学者忽视它们)。通过将来自科学网的数据(以衡量影响的性质)与引用经典的作者撰写的论文(以衡量新颖性类型)相结合，并通过将计算文本分析与统计分析相结合，我们展示了新颖性类型与科学影响性质之间清晰而稳健的模式。正如预期的那样，新方法往往更具颠覆性，而新理论往往不那么颠覆性。令人惊讶的是，新的结果并没有对科学影响的性质产生强有力的影响。
Novelty and impact are key characteristics of the scientific enterprise. Classic theories of scientific change distinguish among different types of novelty and emphasize how a new idea interacts with previous work and influences future flows of knowledge. However, even recently developed measures of novelty remain unidimensional, and continued reliance on citation counts captures only the amount, but not the nature, of scientific impact. To better align theoretical and empirical work, we attend to different types of novelty (new results, new theories, and new methods) and whether a scientific offering has a consolidating form of influence (bringing renewed attention to foundational ideas) or a disruptive one (prompting subsequent scholars to overlook them). By integrating data from the Web of Science (to measure the nature of influence) with essays written by authors of Citation Classics (to measure novelty type), and by joining computational text analysis with statistical analyses, we demonstrate clear and robust patterns between type of novelty and the nature of scientific influence. As expected, new methods tend to be more disruptive, whereas new theories tend to be less disruptive. Surprisingly, new results do not have a robust effect on the nature of scientific influence.