Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Faculty & Research
  • Faculty
  • Research
  • Featured Topics
  • Academic Units
  • …→
  • Harvard Business School→
  • Faculty & Research→
Publications
Publications
  • November 22, 2022
  • Article
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Is Novel Research Worth Doing? Evidence from Peer Review at 49 Journals

By: Misha Teplitskiy, Hao Peng, Andrea Blasco and Karim R. Lakhani
  • Format:Print
  • | Pages:9
ShareBar

Abstract

There are long-standing concerns that peer review, which is foundational to scientific institutions like journals and funding agencies, favors conservative ideas over novel ones. We investigate the association between novelty and the acceptance of manuscripts submitted to a large sample of scientific journals. The data cover 20,538 manuscripts submitted between 2013 and 2018 to the journals Cell and Cell Reports and 6,785 manuscripts submitted in 2018 to 47 journals published by the Institute of Physics Publishing. Following previous work that found that a balance of novel and conventional ideas predicts citation impact, we measure the novelty and conventionality of manuscripts by the atypicality of combinations of journals in their reference lists, taking the 90th percentile most atypical combination as “novelty” and the 50th percentile as “conventionality.” We find that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance; submissions in the top novelty quintile are 6.5 percentage points more likely than bottom quintile ones to get accepted. Higher conventionality is also associated with acceptance (+16.3% top–bottom quintile difference). Disagreement among peer reviewers was not systematically related to submission novelty or conventionality, and editors select strongly for novelty even conditional on reviewers' recommendations (+7.0% top–bottom quintile difference). Manuscripts exhibiting higher novelty were more highly cited. Overall, the findings suggest that journal peer review favors novel research that is well situated in the existing literature, incentivizing exploration in science and challenging the view that peer review is inherently antinovelty.

Keywords

Research; Journals and Magazines

Citation

Teplitskiy, Misha, Hao Peng, Andrea Blasco, and Karim R. Lakhani. "Is Novel Research Worth Doing? Evidence from Peer Review at 49 Journals." e2118046119. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 47 (November 22, 2022).
  • Read Now

About The Author

Karim R. Lakhani

Technology and Operations Management
→More Publications

More from the Authors

    • March 2023
    • Faculty Research

    Moderna (B) Case Supplement

    By: Karim R. Lakhani, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
    • March 2023
    • Faculty Research

    Moderna (A) Case Supplement

    By: Karim R. Lakhani, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
    • March 2023
    • Faculty Research

    Moderna

    By: Marco Iansiti, Karim R. Lakhani, Hannah Mayer, Kerry Herman, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
More from the Authors
  • Moderna (B) Case Supplement By: Karim R. Lakhani, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
  • Moderna (A) Case Supplement By: Karim R. Lakhani, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
  • Moderna By: Marco Iansiti, Karim R. Lakhani, Hannah Mayer, Kerry Herman, Allison J. Wigen and Dave Habeeb
ǁ
Campus Map
Harvard Business School
Soldiers Field
Boston, MA 02163
→Map & Directions
→More Contact Information
  • Make a Gift
  • Site Map
  • Jobs
  • Harvard University
  • Trademarks
  • Policies
  • Accessibility
  • Digital Accessibility
Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College