3 ms·
> We find that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance; submissions in the top novelty quintile are 6.5 percentage points more likely t
by bjornsing 4y ago
> 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.
Ok, so “novel” research is 6.5% more likely to be accepted if submitted, but how likely is it to even be submitted? I would argue that doing “novel” research is much riskier at the earlier stages, and that you need to look at the whole process.
Here’s a thought experiment to perhaps better explain what I mean: Let’s say you’re playing roulette, but with slightly modified rules. If you bet on a color (red or black) you have a chance to double your money as usual. But if you bet on a single number and get it right you only make 6.5% more, or 2.13 your money. Would you bet on a color (i.e. be conservative) or a single number (i.e. try to be “novel”)?
- jraph 4y agoI've heard some researcher saying that a way to manage this is to dedicate a part of your time to risky research, and the rest to less risky research. So you still publish, but also get to explore "interesting" stuff (that also needs to be researched). You are covered by your less risky activity. So, a single number 20%-30% of the time, and a color 70%-80% of the time. And your risky activity could become your comfortable zone if it takes. Getting published is not the only worthy thing. The content itself and how you enjoy the thing too.
- sdenton4 4y agoDon't forget time for teaching, avoiding students (tried to say 'advising' but autocomplete had a better word choice), and grant applications...
- headsoup 4y agoI think it would be much more interesting to see a study between novel research produced under different education models. E.g. government funded vs industry funded vs user pays.