There is no denying that the Digital Era has impacted every aspect of the world, including academics and research. Many of these changes have brought significant advantages in global development, such as the ability to communicate with someone regardless of their location or to expand the reach of a business to engage a wide customer base. So much success has been created because of technology, but it has also brought a few disadvantages.

The global and competitive aspect of research means that scholars have to work a bit harder to stand out from the competition in their field if they want to make impacts and obtain research funding grants. To do this, innovation must be combined with novel approaches. But what defines novelty isn’t always cut and dried in the academic landscape.

Defining Novelty

For many people, the word “novelty” is associated with the newest toy on the shelves at Christmas. The connotation includes ideas of something that is superficial but shiny, exciting but quickly discarded after the initial “novelty” wears off. In research, this term means something completely different.

To a researcher and a funding source, a novel idea means something that is unique in the field or scope you’re analyzing. It can be a new methodology or a new design that sets the stage for new knowledge. It could be an approach that purposefully attempts to add more understanding to the current knowledge base. 

In general, it’s a characteristic of research that takes a topic that has already been the focus of experiments in the past and puts a new and original spin on it. Scholars can do this by changing factors like the design itself, the location or demographics of previous studies, or shifting the database entirely. The best way to know if your idea is novel or not is to do in-depth preliminary research and compare your idea with what is already out there on the subject.

Arguments Against Novelty and For Tradition

Scholars today find themselves facing an extra obstacle in the quest for publishing their work in a prestigious journal. Many of today’s publishing companies are looking for novelty over authenticity and expertise. This is because research journals want to publish work that is going to be cited, which is usually a topic that is new and exciting.

The arguments against this often support the claim that many of these “novel” studies don’t have enough support backing them because they focus on the “shiny” aspects of the research rather than the data that backs up the outcome. Funders award grants based on innovative ideas, but then the research that is necessary to substantiate these novel approaches and build on those precarious foundations is pushed to the side. When a grant request has ideas such as “innovative” and “novel” in it, it’s more likely to be approved, and then published, than those that build on those same approaches.

Why a Balanced Approach is Necessary

Some researchers argue that this push for novelty is exactly part of the reason why the field of science is currently in a reproducibility crisis. The focus on getting novel articles published has taken over the in-depth analysis of research in peer review. A balanced approach is required in order to ensure that progress continues to be made in all fields, but that the work published is put through rigorous review processes to ensure replicability and legitimacy.

When scholars see the reward that comes with inflated claims and specific adjectives to define their research as novel, the temptation arises to compromise the neutrality of the process. In the rush for reward, there is neglect in providing evidence to support each claim.

On the other hand, some journals are attempting a counterbalance to prevent weak articles. They want to ensure every idea that’s even remotely incomplete is addressed, which isn’t always feasible and can even be a deterrent to the reader. If a basic idea should be widely understood by someone reading the journal, the fact that the author lays it out anyway can be seen as condescending or a waste of the reader’s time.

Instead, a balanced approach is necessary, in which the editors attempt to scout out the long-term impact of a novel idea and how it might affect future studies. These newer ideas aren’t always backed with solid evidence at the time. It can take years for this to develop. But as a whole, robust work needs to be balanced with reproducible research.