I feel like if you break down what's being said here, that it's just a consequence of having to communicate ideas to people. I publish "Gravitational constant

I feel like if you break down what's being said here, that it's just a consequence of having to communicate ideas to people. I publish "Gravitational constant is actually (some slightly more specific thing)", with extension of existing methods. Someone sees that and already will be convinced just by the title! I publish "Gravity is actually caused by micro-gnomes pushing things around with walkie-talkes", and it's pretty novel. I don't really have existing work to base it on. Why should anyone believe my work has any basis in reality then? The burden of proof is on me to convince people. Fool-proof methodology, simple explanations. Bringing it back to current understanding helps. But I'm the person saying everything is different, the world owes nothing to me just yet. Not to mention that the header graph is totally confirmation bias. Yes, you're going to cite the original paper citing the effect you're studying. You probably won't cite most incremental research. Definitionally novel papers that get any traction will collect references. --- I actually have an example of my own novel research! I'm the first person to post about a bug with Ubuntu's (at the time) new IME manager[0] on Ask Ubuntu. Turns out there was a real thing (and it wasn't me being silly). So now I have 550 points on Ask Ubuntu because of this question, and get notifications about it all the time. I have cornered the "Ubuntu 13.10 keyboard bug" citation space. Mainly for being first. And I have gotten extra rewarded for it. Novel papers enjoy the same perks when they get any traction. [0]: http://askubuntu.com/questions/356357/how-to-use-altshift-to-switch-keyboard-layouts http://askubuntu.com/questions/356357/how-to-use-altshift-to...