@wangBiasNoveltyScience2017

similar to @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017

[[EVD - highly novel combinations of cited journals in a paper were almost always cross-disciplinary, but cross-disciplinary combinations were infrequently novel - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

novelty strongly implies cross-disciplinary, but not the complement; [[EVD - highly novel combinations of cited journals in a paper were almost always cross-disciplinary, but cross-disciplinary combinations were infrequently novel - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

novelty --> lower impact factor journal, ceteris paribus: [[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be published in lower impact journals - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

{{DONE}} @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017

per @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017 be super careful about this outcome measure of value given [long vs. short run differences for highly novel stuff]([[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]])

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be published in lower impact journals - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

basic result of [[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]] seems to be replicated by a later shorter paper focusing only on physicists: @mairesseNoveltyScienceImpact2018 - noting that this was a sample of papers from 2005-2009, so it starts to get a little bit at my misgivings about generalizing from a sample from 2001 (although it also pushes in the opposite direction by focusing only on physics)

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

main claim here is that [[CLM - bibliometric measures are biased against novel breakthrough research - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

also interesting is the idea of distant recombination, which feels like a mix of far conceptual combination and far analogies and outsider innovation, depending on the examples. don't find this to be particularly well theorized. but this connects very well to the way @uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013 and @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017 think about things

novelty --> big hit, esp. in long run, and outside home field: [[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

novelty --> higher variance in impact: [[EVD - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]