Mentions
Extended reach
Total likes
Video views
AI synopsis
The social discussions reveal a consensus that impactful science often involves blending traditional knowledge with a touch of novelty, as shown in remarks about how high-impact papers are grounded in conventional combinations but include unusual elements. Examples include references to empirical data, such as the study analyzing 17.9 million papers, and comments about how interdisciplinary work's effectiveness depends on the extent of shared knowledge. The tone is analytical and slightly enthusiastic, emphasizing the article's relevance and the nuanced view of innovation in science.
Most discussions agree with the main finding that impactful research combines conventional and novel elements.
Posts demonstrate high interest by referencing specific details, like how high-impact papers often merge familiar with unusual ideas.
Discussions explore methods, implications, and question the relationship between novelty and impact, showing moderate depth.
The overall tone suggests these social discussions view the article as highlighting significant insights into scientific productivity and innovation.
What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that combine conventional prior work and insert a little bit of novelty. https://t.co/byDv5d2tza https://t.co/X2nLKgl6hb
Using peer review data from 49 journals in physical and life sciences, provided by @IOPPublishing and @CellPressNews, and measuring novelty using @UzziLeadership et al. 2013 (https://t.co/J1c2QmafYn ) we ask a simple question ❓Are novel papers easier to publish❓ 3/n
@ben_golub Success is correlated with how much they internalize this result https://t.co/mXINlve1aR
@kearney_melissa Uzzi et al find high-impact research is slightly but not very unusual combos of prior work (https://t.co/l4MKFZp8Mk). Highly interdisciplinary work tends to have too little shared prior knowledge to make big breakthrough. I know no good evidence for the common dean preference.
@PsychRabble @lakens @Chrismartin76 @NeilLewisJr @ceptional @RogertheGS @BobbiePoPS @CampbellSocProf @chrisdc77 @MattGrossmann Some of these may be relevant: - https://t.co/LXxrNi6Biq - https://t.co/09J5r1IoRa - https://t.co/7lQaQYoXRU - https://t.co/vEIvQti3hd - https://t.co/wASBf6UItY - ISBN: 978-0-585-46389-6 - https://t.co/xC1V1ZOHzN - https://t.co/YFOlSNzczY - https://t.co/YJmbdUEGt9
@byrd_nick @UzziLeadership @PNASNews @bfjo @KelloggSchool @NICOatNU @NorthwesternU @NorthwesternEng @ResearchNU That’s a great question, Nick. We measured novelty using two measures in the existing literature. One is the novelty measure per https://t.co/JAGB91aYNg and the other is by topic expertise following the sterling index https://t.co/sb3VklELl6. Our main findings hold for both.
In the 1960s NASAs engineers were building the Apollo spacecraft but they ran into a major problem that almost prevented them from getting to the moon. To solve it, they brought in some unexpected help: expert weavers…
In the 1960s, NASA engineers faced a major problem that nearly prevented the Apollo Moon landing. They sought help from unexpected specialists, including those working with central memory rope technology used in the…
@Cmwitko I would argue that interdisciplinary work is more likely to get you to those atypical combinations than monodisciplinary team https://t.co/BEV1WfWCuv
@EikoFried This is cool: "Our analysis of 17.9 million papers spanning all scientific fields: the highest-impact science is primarily grounded in exceptionally conventional combinations of prior work yet simultaneously features an intrusion of unusual combinations." https://t.co/bn5EzAbpbq
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
RT @florianederer: What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that com…
What papers have the biggest scientific impact? Surprisingly, it's not the most novel papers, but those papers that combine conventional prior work and insert a little bit of novelty. https://t.co/byDv5d2tza https://t.co/X2nLKgl6hb
RT @MishaTeplitskiy: Using peer review data from 49 journals in physical and life sciences, provided by @IOPPublishing and @CellPressNews,…
Using peer review data from 49 journals in physical and life sciences, provided by @IOPPublishing and @CellPressNews, and measuring novelty using @UzziLeadership et al. 2013 (https://t.co/J1c2QmafYn ) we ask a simple question ❓Are novel papers easier to publish❓ 3/n
@byrd_nick @UzziLeadership @PNASNews @bfjo @KelloggSchool @NICOatNU @NorthwesternU @NorthwesternEng @ResearchNU That’s a great question, Nick. We measured novelty using two measures in the existing literature. One is the novelty measure per https://t.co/JAGB91aYNg and the other is by topic expertise following the sterling index https://t.co/sb3VklELl6. Our main findings hold for both.
@MikeKra36812131 From this great paper- https://t.co/WxnE4eYr25
@PsychRabble @lakens @Chrismartin76 @NeilLewisJr @ceptional @RogertheGS @BobbiePoPS @CampbellSocProf @chrisdc77 @MattGrossmann Some of these may be relevant: - https://t.co/LXxrNi6Biq - https://t.co/09J5r1IoRa - https://t.co/7lQaQYoXRU - https://t.co/vEIvQti3hd - https://t.co/wASBf6UItY - ISBN: 978-0-585-46389-6 - https://t.co/xC1V1ZOHzN - https://t.co/YFOlSNzczY - https://t.co/YJmbdUEGt9
@ben_golub Success is correlated with how much they internalize this result https://t.co/mXINlve1aR
@kearney_melissa Uzzi et al find high-impact research is slightly but not very unusual combos of prior work (https://t.co/l4MKFZp8Mk). Highly interdisciplinary work tends to have too little shared prior knowledge to make big breakthrough. I know no good evidence for the common dean preference.
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact https://t.co/4ptY2q65FV
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
RT @min0nmin0n: 研究結果の出典元はこちら。1800万件の科学論文のアイデアの形を分析したところ、「既存の知識」と「意外な組み合わせ」がある論文はそうでない論文に比べて2倍以上被引用数が多く、完全に新しい知識の組み合わせは非常に稀だったとのこと https://t…
@nalanpog @haoopeng @mrblasco @klakhani Good question... a. Novelty measure (we use https://t.co/J1c2QmafYn) - I think yes. IIRC original paper finds effect across fields + measure's been used in a bunch of places since (1/2)
Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact, 7 years old https://t.co/qxfCiBkceP
this is very nice. and if you don't know the work by Uzzi, super relevant: Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science https://t.co/gYG7vOJwR8
Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact by Brian Uzzi, Satyam Mukherjee, Michael Stringer, Ben Jones Novelty is an essential feature of creative ideas, yet the building blocks of new ideas are often embodied in existing knowle…https://t.co/ZZLu2dJcKX https://t.co/z63LG8d2Ar
Science of making science: Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact https://t.co/d9OAxC5vBx
RT @revistapcyt: Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact https://t.co/lkzRrISL4A
Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact https://t.co/lkzRrISL4A
1240474. 28. Jensen, R.A., Thursby, J.G., and Thursby, M.C. (2003) ... 10.1126/science.aam9527. doi.org/10.1086/ipe.8.25056198. 58. Huang, M.-H ...
scientific innovation among elite scientists. Table 1 summarizes key ... https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 10.1057/s41599-024-03402-w 1240474. Andalón ...
and Scientific Impact." Science 342(6157):468-72. doi: 10.1126/science.1240474. Vakili, Keyvan and Sarah Kaplan. 2021. “Organizing for Innovation: How Team ...
Science, 342(6157), 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474. Van Noorden, R., & Perkel, J. M. (2023). AI and science: What 1,600 researchers think.
Coverage of: • social sciences • life sciences • health sciences • physical sciences Scopus ... 468-472 DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474 •REPORT Atypical Combinations ...
Science, 342(6157):468-472. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240474. Veugelers, R. & Wang, J. 2019. Scientific novelty and technological impact.
(2013) 'Atypical combinations and scientific impact', Science, 342(6157), pp. 468–472. doi: 10.1126/science.1240474. https://twitter.com/Keld_Laursen/status ...
Jones, Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013). 10.1126/science.1240474. Crossref · PubMed · Web of Science · Google Scholar. a ...
Science (New York, N.Y.), 342(6157), 468–472. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474 #psychology #creativity #originality #thegoodenough ...
the “hard” sciences (natural sciences) and “soft” sciences (social sciences and ... https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474. 62. Chen S, Guo Y, ...
org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1240474. 8. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J. et al. The fair guiding principles for scientific ...
Science 342, 468–472 (2013). doi: 10.1126/science.1240474; pmid: 24159044. 27. J. Wang, R. Veugelers, P. Stephan, “Bias against novelty in ...
Cunningham. AI and the transformation of social science research. 9203. doi: 10.1126/science.1240474. Science, 380(6650):1108–1109, ...
Science 342, 468–472 (2013). doi: 10.1126/science.1240474; pmid: 24159044. 27. J. Wang, R. Veugelers, P. Stephan, “Bias against novelty in ...
Coverage of: • Social sciences • Life sciences • Health sciences • Physical sciences Scopus ... 468-472 DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474 •REPORT ...
Science [online]. 2012, vol. 342, no. 6157, pp. 468-472 [viewed 12 March 2020]. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474. Available from: https ...
Science [online]. 2012, vol. 342, no. 6157, pp. 468-472 [viewed 12 March 2020]. DOI: 10.1126/science.1240474. Available from: https ...
Using a database of 17.9 million papers in the Web of Science spanning all scientific ... 10.1126/science.1240474). Topics. Academia · citations ...
AnywhereScienceScience AdvancesScience ImmunologyScience RoboticsScience SignalingScience ... https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1240474.
FE
MS
HA
KB
RK
YY
NC
TP
SG
ÁV
SP
SP
DN
MG
BG
KS
TS
OE
RK
LB
MM
HP
T
小K
お
ふ
ぬ
SN
YH
G正
ね
LL
LN
MD
AN
RT