What is it about?
Scientific institutions like funding agencies and journals are often criticized for being conservative, selecting incremental research over the truly novel. This conservatism is usually attributed to peer reviewers' cognitive biases or self-interest. Our study of peer review at 49 journals shows that, contrary to the conventional view, they tend to select novel work.
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash
Why is it important?
The findings identify an important incentive for novelty -- novel papers are easier to publish. They also challenge the view that peer reviewers are inherently biased or self-interested.
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Is novel research worth doing? Evidence from peer review at 49 journals, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, November 2022, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2118046119.
You can read the full text:
The following have contributed to this page