how to write research novelty

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

Novelty in Research: What It Is and How to Know Your Work is Original

One of the key prerequisites for researcher success, irrespective of their field of study, is identifying the novelty in research. They hope to make new discoveries that build on the work of others and produce fresh perspectives on existing knowledge in their field. To achieve this, researchers invest considerable time and effort in reading relevant literature, conducting experiments, and staying up to date on the latest developments in their own and related fields. Most journals seek to publish research that is novel, significant, and interesting to its readers. Establishing novelty in research is also critical when applying for funding, which makes it essential to prove this early in the research process. But what is meant by novelty in research and how can one judge the novelty of their research study? This article will help you answer these questions in the simplest manner.

Table of Contents

What is meant by novelty in research?

The word ‘novelty’ comes from the Latin word ‘novus,’ which simply means new. Apart from new, the term is also associated with things, ideas or products for instance, that are original or unusual. Novelty in research refers to the introduction of a new idea or a unique perspective that adds to the existing knowledge in a particular field of study. It involves bringing something fresh and original to the table that has not been done before or exploring an existing topic in a new and innovative way. Novelty in research expands the boundaries of a particular research discipline and provides new insights into previously unexplored areas. It is also one of the first things academic journals look for when evaluating a manuscript submitted for publishing. This makes it essential for researchers to ensure novelty in research in order to create new knowledge and make a significant contribution to their field of study.

How can you ensure novelty in research?

Academics are often immersed in their research and so focused on excellence that it can be difficult to examine your work as an author and judge its novelty in research objectively. But this challenge can be overcome with time and practice by adding research reading to your daily schedule. Assessing novelty in research means evaluating how new and original the ideas or findings presented in a study are, in comparison to existing knowledge in the field. Here are some ways to judge the novelty of research:

• Conduct a literature review: A literature review is an essential component of any research project, and it helps to establish the context for the study by identifying what is already known about the topic. By reviewing the existing literature, researchers can identify gaps in the knowledge and formulate new questions or hypotheses to investigate, ensuring novelty in research.
• Compare with previous studies: Researchers can assess the novelty of their work by comparing their findings to those of previous studies in the same or related fields. If the results differ significantly from what has been previously reported, it can be an indication that the study is novel and potentially significant.
• Read target journal publications: Subscribe to your target journal and other reputed journals in your field of study and keep up with the articles it publishes. Since most high-impact journals typically ensure novelty in research when publishing papers, this will help you keep track of the developments and progress being made in your subject area.
• Assess contribution to the field: One way to assess novelty in research is to evaluate how much it contributes to your specific field. Research that makes a significant contribution to advancing knowledge or addressing important questions is often considered more valuable than those that simply replicate elements from previously published research.
• Consider an alternative methodology: Even if the topic or area of study has been studied, one can bring in novelty in research by exploring various methodologies or by tweaking the research question to provide new insights and perspectives. Researchers can highlight aspects of the study that have not been done before, introduce these in the proposed research design, and illuminate how this will ensure novelty in research.
• Get support from your peers: Engage with your mentors/supervisors, professors, peers, and other experts in the field to get their feedback on introducing novelties in their research. It’s a good idea to join and actively participate in scientific research and scholarly groups or networks where users provide updates on new technological innovations and development.
• Make research reading a habit: An overwhelming number of research papers are published every day, making it difficult for researchers to keep up with new, relevant developments in the world of research. This is where online tools for researchers can help you simplify this process while saving on time and effort. Smart AI-driven apps like R Discovery can understand your areas of interest and curate a reading feed with personalized article recommendation, alerts on newly published articles, summaries to help you quickly evaluate articles, and many other useful features for researchers. By taking the search out of research, it gives you back time that you can then spend to stay updated and ensure novelty in research.

In an ideal world, all research done would be completely original. Yet with rapid advances in technology and research, there are bound to be overlaps with previously published papers. The key here is to find a new way of looking at old problems, trying new methodologies and angles, and coming up with interesting insights that can add to or alter current knowledge in your field of research. Smart online tools have made it easier to read and keep up with the latest in research and we’re sure the tips above will help you better assess your project and judge the novelty of your research study.

R Discovery is a literature search and research reading platform that accelerates your research discovery journey by keeping you updated on the latest, most relevant scholarly content. With 250M+ research articles sourced from trusted aggregators like CrossRef, Unpaywall, PubMed, PubMed Central, Open Alex and top publishing houses like Springer Nature, JAMA, IOP, Taylor & Francis, NEJM, BMJ, Karger, SAGE, Emerald Publishing and more, R Discovery puts a world of research at your fingertips.  

Try R Discovery Prime FREE for 1 week or upgrade at just US$72 a year to access premium features that let you listen to research on the go, read in your language, collaborate with peers, auto sync with reference managers, and much more. Choose a simpler, smarter way to find and read research – Download the app and start your free 7-day trial today !  

Related Posts

Simple Random Sampling: Definition, Methods, and Examples

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

• Translation

Understanding Research Novelty and Research Gaps – Exploring the unknown

By charlesworth author services.

• 07 November, 2023

In academic research, the concepts of research novelty and research gaps stand as two pivotal pillars dictating the success and significance of a study. Understanding these concepts is fundamental to encapsulate different facets of the research process, determining the originality and necessity of a study.

What Is Research Novelty

Novelty in research can be described as the uniqueness or originality of the idea. It brings freshness in scholarly endeavours by exploring topics, questions, and/or problems that have not been extensively investigated before. The relevance of novelty lies in introducing new ideas, concepts, methodologies or insights, which offer new perspectives to the existing body of knowledge. Demonstrating research novelty not only poses to be a gateway to publishing in prestigious journals but also helps in gaining recognition. Furthermore, it prevents redundancy, ensuring researchers don’t tread already explored paths.

6 Strategies to Find Research Novelty

Researchers seeking novelty often engage in innovative experiments, employ new approaches, propose unique hypotheses or delve into unexplored territories within their field of study. Ensuring research novelty can be challenging as bringing novelty requires objective evaluation of the presented ideas or findings when compared to existing knowledge.

Some strategies to find and ensure novelty in research are as follows:

1. Conducting an Extensive Literature Review 

Analysing existing literature uncovers gaps in knowledge, guiding the formulation of new questions or hypotheses, thereby ensuring novelty.

2. Comparing with Previous Studies

Contrasting research findings with previous studies helps determine the originality and significance of the current research.

3. Staying Updated with the Latest Developments

Subscribing to reputable journals in the field helps researchers track and align with developments, maintaining novelty in their work.

4. Assessing Contribution to the Field

Evaluating how much the research contributes to advancing knowledge is a key indicator of its novelty and value.

5. Considering Alternative Methodologies

Introducing novelty can involve exploring new methodologies or tweaking research questions to offer fresh perspectives.

6. Seeking Peer Support

Engaging with mentors, peers and scholarly groups to receive feedback and guidance on introducing novelty into research efforts.

What Are Research Gaps

Research gaps denote identifying gaps or deficiencies within the current literature that necessitate further exploration. These gaps serve acts as the rationale or motivation for a study, thus highlighting its necessity.

How to Identify Research Gaps

Identifying research gaps primarily occurs during the literature review process. Researchers meticulously analyse existing works to determine what aspects remain unexplored or demand further investigation.

Here are some tips to identify research gaps.

1. Review Existing Studies

Thoroughly understand the contributions of previous studies and create a list of your unresolved questions. If your questions remain unanswered in the existing literature, it may indicate a potential research gap.

2. Explore Suggestions for Future Research

Analyse the conclusion or "suggestions for future research" sections of existing studies to identify areas where further research is needed.

3. Trace Seminal Works

Identify influential studies cited repeatedly in the literature to uncover related research.

4. Utilise Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Comprehensive papers like meta-analyses, literature reviews, and systematic reviews offer an overview of existing research, trends, and changes over time in a field.

By using these techniques, researchers can identify areas where further studies are necessary. 

Difference Between Research Gap and Research Novelty

While research novelty focuses on introducing unique elements, research gaps identify the areas that demand attention due to their inadequacy in current literature. Here are some differences between research novelty and research gaps.

Understanding research novelty and research gaps are indispensable for any researcher striving to make a meaningful contribution to their field. They drive the development and progression of knowledge. 

Share with your colleagues

Scientific Editing Services

Sign up – stay updated.

We use cookies to offer you a personalized experience. By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

• Editing & Proofreading
• Writing Tips

How to avoid “claims of first discovery” but still tell readers your research is novel

Every researcher wants to tell the world they are the first to find out something new

Unfortunately, many journals’ instructions to authors specifically ask that you avoid using phrases like “we provide the first evidence”, “this is the first discovery” or “we are the first group to prove that…”. These phrases are often referred to as “claims of novelty or priority”, “statements of novelty or priority” or “claims of first discovery”.

In fact, every published paper presents new findings

Otherwise, the journal would not have published the study. If you have really discovered something new, you don’t actually need to use “claims of novelty” at all. Instead, you can tell the reader how your work provides new knowledge using a clever, subtle method.

The best approach is to describe the current state of knowledge or technology in your field of research, then make it clear how your research adds value, perhaps by providing the answer to a previously unanswered question, finding the solution to an unsolved problem or improving existing methods.

For example, compare:

• Our study provides the first demonstration that Enzyme A is specifically expressed in astrocytes and protects neurons against oxidative stress.
• It was previously shown that Enzyme A is expressed at high levels in the brain of patients with brain injury (Brown et al., 2006); however, the role of Enzyme A in the brain had not been characterised. Our study demonstrates Enzyme A is specifically expressed in astrocytes and protects neurons against oxidative stress.

The first example simply states what the researcher found out, but does not say how this is important, or whether their research adds to existing knowledge. The second example is much better, as it summarises what was known (and also what was not known!) about Enzyme A before the study, and then states how the findings expand our knowledge.

Avoiding “statements of novelty or priority” or “claims of first discovery” helps you write a better manuscript

A well-written statement (like the example above), provides a concise summary of the findings and importance of your paper, which will help you to structure the basic message of your whole manuscript.

At Science Editing Experts, we help scientists like you to submit well-written journal papers with confidence and complete your thesis without headaches, so you can focus on your research and career.

Andrea Devlin PhD

Chief editor and owner of Science Editing Experts

30 simple "word swaps" to improve your scientific writing

Discover these easy 'Find and Replace' strategies to make your dissertation or journal manuscript clearer, with zero effort!

Busy scientists...

discover 30 word swaps to improve your scientific writing

Easy 'Find and Replace' strategies to make your scientific writing clearer, with zero effort!

Editing & Proofreadin g

GDPR/Privacy

Website Terms

Course/Coaching Terms

Image Attribution

2 Drumgrannon Heights, Moy, Northern Ireland, BT71 7TW, UK.

© Science Editing Experts 2022-2024. All Rights Reserved.

How to Find Novelty in Research

How to f ind novelty in research.

Novelty is a new discovery or renewal in a research . It’s means that novelty is how researchers in their research find new knowledge, information, methods from previous research. 

Novelty in a research is important because a research must contain benefits or impacts for the environment and from a social perspective. The following points may help you find novelty in your research:

1. Read the research literature

First, to find innovation in research is read lots of research literature. Searching for literature on similar topics will assist you to determine whether an existing research topic has been used or not. In addition, you should focus on things, such as methodology, theory, and previous research findings in order to analyze your original research. You can find research literature in several online libraries, both national and international. For example, Sinta, Scopus, Google Scholar , Academia.edu.

2. Finding Research Gap Problems

Second, unresolved problem that has not been resolve by any existing researches within your field referred as research gap. If a previous research is outdated and requires revision or updating, researchers may occasionally discover a research gap in their research. For example, there is research on internet use in 2000 is no longer valid today, and the data needs modification.  

3. Find Variables That Have Never Been Researched

Third, one of the innovations in research comes from variables that have never been studied before. Reading the literature is your key to find out whether variables have been used or not in research in your field.

4. Apply Different Theory from Previous Research

Furthermore, a research can find novelty if it is studied using a different theory. Therefore, you can innovate your research by finding or analyzing a research with a different theories. Otherwise, you can also study it with different methodologies.

to publish your journal, please contact +62 813-5858-0584 or visit our journal at www.jfpublisher.com

Leave Your Comment Cancel Reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Popular Posts

Get to Know Different Styles...

Get To Know The Pros...

How to Write Your Article...

Subscribe us for amazing updates and news about elementor..

We as international journal publisher that can be accessed by every researcher and reader to explore and cite academic research content. also provides open access journals and distributes knowledge globally.

Quick Links

• Our Journal
• For Reviewers
• For Authors
• Editorial Board

Contact Info

Graha indah e-11 gayung kebonsari, gayungan, surabaya, east java. 60235, [email protected], +62 813 - 5858 - 0584, copyright © 2023 jf publisher by jakad.id . all rights reserved.

what is novelty in research

Novelty in research refers to the quality of being new, original, or unique. It signifies that the research findings, methods, or approach have not been previously documented or explored in the same manner. Novelty is a fundamental aspect of research and is essential for advancing knowledge, solving problems, and making meaningful contributions to a particular field or discipline.

Here are key aspects of novelty in research:

• Originality : Novelty implies that the research introduces something new and not merely reiterates existing knowledge. It can involve fresh insights, innovative methodologies, or previously unexplored research questions.
• Advancing the Field : Novel research contributes to the advancement of a particular field or area of study. It pushes the boundaries of knowledge and expands the frontiers of human understanding.
• Addressing Gaps : Researchers often identify gaps in existing literature or knowledge and aim to fill these gaps with novel research. By addressing unanswered questions or unexplored aspects, they contribute to the accumulation of new knowledge.
• Innovation : Novelty often involves innovative thinking. Researchers may employ creative or unconventional approaches to gather and analyze data, leading to unique findings and interpretations.
• Interdisciplinary Insights : Sometimes, novelty emerges when researchers apply insights and methodologies from one discipline to another, resulting in fresh perspectives and discoveries.
• Surprising Results : Research can be considered novel when it yields unexpected or surprising results that challenge preconceived notions or prevailing theories.
• Contributing to Scientific Progress : Novel research is a driving force behind scientific progress. It encourages the continual evolution of knowledge by building upon what is already known.
• Applicability : Novelty is not limited to theoretical research; it can also be applicable to practical or applied research. Discovering new solutions to real-world problems, for instance, can be considered a novel contribution.

how to write novelty in research

Writing about the novelty in your research is a critical aspect of presenting your work effectively, whether you are preparing a research paper, thesis, or a presentation. Communicating the uniqueness and originality of your research findings is essential to make your work stand out in the academic or scientific community. Here are some steps and strategies for effectively conveying the novelty in your research:

• Begin your research paper or presentation with a clear and engaging introduction that highlights the importance of the research problem.
• Explain the context of your research by discussing existing literature and the current state of knowledge in your field.
• Clearly articulate the gap or deficiency in the current body of knowledge that your research addresses. This is where you can establish the need for your study.
• Clearly outline your research objectives or hypotheses. This should demonstrate what you intend to achieve with your study.
• Provide a detailed account of your research methodology. Explain how your approach is different from or builds upon existing methods.
• If your research involves unique data sources, datasets, or experimental setups, emphasize this in your writing. Explain why these sources are novel and how they contribute to the uniqueness of your research.
• If your research employs innovative techniques, tools, or technology, describe these in detail. Explain how these methods contribute to the novelty of your research.
• Clearly present your research findings. Emphasize any unexpected or unique results that you have obtained.
• Use graphs, charts, or visuals to illustrate your findings and make them more accessible to your audience.
• Discuss the implications and significance of your research findings. Explain how they fill the identified research gap and contribute to the field.
• Provide a comparative analysis of your research with existing literature and studies. Highlight the differences and innovations that make your research unique.
• Acknowledge any limitations in your study, but also discuss how these limitations do not diminish the novelty and significance of your findings.
• In your conclusion, reiterate the novelty and originality of your research. Summarize the key contributions your work makes to the field.
• Write in a clear, concise, and precise manner. Avoid jargon or overly complex language that might obscure the uniqueness of your research.
• Share your work with peers, mentors, or colleagues to get their feedback on how effectively you’re conveying the novelty in your research.
• Ensure that you provide proper citations and references for existing literature and sources you have used in your research. This demonstrates your familiarity with the field and helps reinforce the uniqueness of your work.

It’s important to note that achieving novelty in research can be challenging. Researchers must conduct thorough literature reviews to ensure they are not duplicating existing work. Additionally, they must craft research questions, designs, and methodologies that bring a fresh perspective to the subject matter. The pursuit of novelty requires a deep understanding of the research area, critical thinking, and a willingness to explore uncharted territories.

In the academic and scientific community, novelty is highly valued and often a key criterion for the acceptance of research papers in reputable journals or conferences. It is a testament to the researcher’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the collective knowledge of their field.

Similar Posts

What is sampling in research.

Sampling in research refers to the process of selecting a subset of individuals or items from a larger population for the purpose of making inferences or drawing conclusions about that population. The key idea behind…

The Importance Of Citations And Referencing In Research

In the world of research, citations and referencing hold immense importance. So, what exactly are citations and referencing, and why are they essential? Let’s dive in and explore their significance together! When conducting research, it’s…

Difference Between Thesis and Dissertation

Introduction: Thesis and dissertation are two terms often used interchangeably in the academic world. However, they have distinct differences in terms of purpose, scope, and structure. In this comparison, we’ll explore the definitions, ten key…

What is research design in research

Research design in research refers to the overall plan or structure that guides how a research study is conducted. It serves as a blueprint for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to address research questions or…

What is population in research?

In research, a “population” refers to the entire group or set of individuals, items, or elements that are the subject of a study. This population is the target of investigation, and it represents the larger…

What abstract in research

An abstract in research is a concise and comprehensive summary of a research paper, thesis, dissertation, or academic article. It is typically found at the beginning of a scholarly document and serves as a brief…

Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach

• Published: 23 June 2021
• Volume 126 , pages 6891–6915, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Kuniko Matsumoto 1 ,
• Sotaro Shibayama 2 ,
• Byeongwoo Kang 3 &
• Masatsura Igami 1  

1680 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Citation counts have long been considered as the primary bibliographic indicator for evaluating the quality of research—a practice premised on the assumption that citation count is reflective of the impact of a scientific publication. However, identifying several limitations in the use of citation counts alone, scholars have advanced the need for multifaceted quality evaluation methods. In this study, we apply a novelty indicator to quantify the degree of citation similarity between a focal paper and a pre-existing same-domain paper from various fields in the natural sciences by proposing a new way of identifying papers that fall into the same domain of focal papers using bibliometric data only. We also conduct a validation analysis, using Japanese survey data, to confirm its usefulness. Employing ordered logit and ordinary least squares regression models, this study tests the consistency between the novelty scores of 1871 Japanese papers published in the natural sciences between 2001 and 2006 and researchers’ subjective judgments of their novelty. The results show statistically positive correlations between novelty scores and researchers’ assessment of research types reflecting aspects of novelty in various natural science fields. As such, this study demonstrates that the proposed novelty indicator is a suitable means of identifying the novelty of various types of natural scientific research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

How to design bibliometric research: an overview and a framework proposal

Literature reviews as independent studies: guidelines for academic practice

How to Write and Publish a Research Paper for a Peer-Reviewed Journal

The journal field refers the 22 scientific fields in the Essential Science Indicators (ESI) of Thomson Reuters.

The reclassification procedures of multidisciplinary field papers were as follows: (i) collecting the references of a focal paper in the multidisciplinary field; (ii) identifying the scientific field of each reference, where a field was identified based on the scientific fields of a journal; (iii) finding the most frequent scientific field in the references of the focal paper, except for multidisciplinary fields; and (iv) using the most frequent scientific field as the scientific field of the focal paper.

These correspond to focal papers without reference papers or having no same-domain papers. For these focal papers, the novelty scores are not calculable or become zero (the latter case is rare in our study; there are only two observations).

As shown in Tables 2 and 3 , our novelty scores are close to 1 and their variances are small. Previous research indicators (i.e., those used by Dahlin and Behrens ( 2005 ) and Trapido ( 2015 )), which are the basis of our indicators, also have similar features. The small variation in the scores may make it difficult to interpret whether novelty is high or low, especially for the practical use of the indicators. On this point, applying methods such as standardization would help interpret the indicators. Figure  2 is one such example where we adopted percentile representation for the horizontal axis.

This tendency is also confirmed in the other citation windows.

The ordered logit and OLS regression models use the same dependent and independent variables with robust standard errors.

Ahmed, T., Johnson, B., Oppenheim, C., & Peck, C. (2004). Highly cited old papers and the reasons why they continue to be cited: Part II. The 1953 Watson and Crick article on the structure of DNA. Scientometrics, 61 , 147–156.

Article   Google Scholar  

Baird, L. M., & Oppenheim, C. (1994). Do citations matter? Journal of Information Science, 20 (1), 2–15.

Bornmann, L., Schier, H., Marx, W., & Daniel, H. D. (2012). What factors determine citation counts of publications in chemistry besides their quality? Journal of Informetrics, 6 (1), 11–18.

Bornmann, L., Tekles, A., Zhang, H. H., & Fred, Y. Y. (2019). Do we measure novelty when we analyze unusual combinations of cited references? A validation study of bibliometric novelty indicators based on F1000Prime data. Journal of Informetrics, 13 (4), 100979.

Clarivate Analytics. (2020). Web of science core collection help. https://images.webofknowledge.com/images/help/WOS/hp_subject_category_terms_tasca.html . Accessed 16 October 2020.

Dahlin, K. B., & Behrens, D. M. (2005). When is an invention really radical? Defining and measuring technological radicalness. Research Policy, 34 (5), 717–737.

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47 (1), 117–132.

Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520 (7548), 429–431.

Igami, M., Nagaoka, S., & Walsh, J. P. (2015). Contribution of postdoctoral fellows to fast-moving and competitive scientific research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 (4), 723–741.

Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36 (10), 1435–1457.

Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44 (3), 684–697.

MacRoberts, M., & MacRoberts, B. (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36 (3), 435–444.

Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69 (3), 220–232.

Murayama, K., Nirei, M., & Shimizu, H. (2015). Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the US. Research Policy, 44 (4), 862–873.

Nagaoka, S., Igami, M., Eto, M., & Ijichi, T. (2010). Knowledge creation process in science: Basic findings from a large-scale survey of researchers in Japan . IIR Working Paper, WP#10–08. Japan: Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University.

Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change . Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Nieminen, P., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., & Schumacher, M. (2006). The relationship between quality of research and citation frequency. BMC Medical Research Methodology . https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-42

Oppenheim, C., & Renn, S. P. (1978). Highly cited old papers and reasons why they continue to be cited. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 29 , 225–231.

Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8 (1), 3–22.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles: A theoretical, historical and statistical analysis of the capitalist process . McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 475–494.

Tahamtan, I., & Bornmann, L. (2018). Creativity in science and the link to cited references: Is the creative potential of papers reflected in their cited references? Journal of Informetrics, 12 (3), 906–930.

Thelwall, M. (2017). Web indicators for research evaluation: A practical guide. Synthesis Lectures on Information Concepts, Retrieval and Services, 8 (4), i1–i155.

Google Scholar  

Trapido, D. (2015). How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities. Research Policy, 44 (8), 1488–1500.

Uddin, S., Khan, A., & Baur, L. A. (2015). A framework to explore the knowledge structure of multidisciplinary research fields. PLoS ONE, 10 (4), e0123537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123537

Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. (2013). Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science, 342 (6157), 468–472.

Verhoeven, D., Bakker, J., & Veugelers, R. (2016). Measuring technological novelty with patent-based indicators. Research Policy, 45 (3), 707–723.

Walsh, J. P., & Lee, Y. N. (2015). The bureaucratization of science. Research Policy, 44 (8), 1584–1600.

Wang, J., Lee, Y.-N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy, 47 (6), 1070–1083.

Wang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. (2017). Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46 (8), 1416–1436.

Zdaniuk, B. (2014). Ordinary least-squares (OLS) model. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank Natsuo Onodera for his invaluable insights regarding the measuring of the novelty score.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Unit for Science and Technology Analysis and Indicators, National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), Tokyo, Japan

Kuniko Matsumoto & Masatsura Igami

School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

Sotaro Shibayama

Institute of Innovation Research, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan

Byeongwoo Kang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by KM. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KM, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuniko Matsumoto .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Matsumoto, K., Shibayama, S., Kang, B. et al. Introducing a novelty indicator for scientific research: validating the knowledge-based combinatorial approach. Scientometrics 126 , 6891–6915 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04049-z

Download citation

Received : 18 November 2020

Accepted : 17 May 2021

Published : 23 June 2021

Issue Date : August 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04049-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bibliometrics
• Reference combination
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Understanding and solving intractable resource governance problems.

• Conferences and Talks
• Exploring models of electronic wastes governance in the United States and Mexico: Recycling, risk and environmental justice
• The Collaborative Resource Governance Lab (CoReGovLab)
• Water Conflicts in Mexico: A Multi-Method Approach
• Past projects
• Publications and scholarly output
• Research Interests
• Higher education and academia
• Public administration, public policy and public management research
• Research-oriented blog posts
• Stuff about research methods
• Research trajectory
• Publications
• Developing a Writing Practice
• Outlining Papers
• Publishing strategies
• Writing a book manuscript
• Writing a research paper, book chapter or dissertation/thesis chapter
• Everything Notebook
• Literature Reviews
• Note-Taking Techniques
• Organization and Time Management
• Planning Methods and Approaches
• Qualitative Methods, Qualitative Research, Qualitative Analysis
• Reading Notes of Books
• Reading Strategies
• Teaching Public Policy, Public Administration and Public Management
• My Reading Notes of Books on How to Write a Doctoral Dissertation/How to Conduct PhD Research
• Writing a Thesis (Undergraduate or Masters) or a Dissertation (PhD)
• Reading strategies for undergraduates
• Social Media in Academia
• Resources for Job Seekers in the Academic Market
• Writing Groups and Retreats
• Regional Development (Fall 2015)
• State and Local Government (Fall 2015)
• Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2016)
• Regional Development (Fall 2016)
• Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2018)
• Public Policy Analysis (Fall 2019)
• Public Policy Analysis (Spring 2016)
• POLI 351 Environmental Policy and Politics (Summer Session 2011)
• POLI 352 Comparative Politics of Public Policy (Term 2)
• POLI 375A Global Environmental Politics (Term 2)
• POLI 350A Public Policy (Term 2)
• POLI 351 Environmental Policy and Politics (Term 1)
• POLI 332 Latin American Environmental Politics (Term 2, Spring 2012)
• POLI 350A Public Policy (Term 1, Sep-Dec 2011)
• POLI 375A Global Environmental Politics (Term 1, Sep-Dec 2011)

How to make your claim of novelty and contributions to the scholarly literature VERY clear with an example

THREAD: on making your claim of novelty and contribution to the literature VERY clear with an example from Dr. Lisa Pinley Covert’s book.

She then clearly outlines research questions. Also note how Pinley Covert clearly lays out different alternative explanations (in a very well laid out “if X, then Y” format).

Note how (in the third screenshot, pp. xx) Pinley Covert also firmly expresses the multiple explanations SHE OFFERS that counter traditional narratives.

Pinley Covert also offers 3 distinct contributions to the literature. Something that I have emphasized with my own doctoral students is that they need to provide at least three distinct contributions (page xx, starting on paragraph 2).

When doing a book-style doctoral dissertation, 3 chapters could be empirical or theoretical or both. If someone writes a papers-based dissertation, each one of the 3 papers could be a distinct contribution as well. Pinley Covert does a fantastic job of suggesting how her book builds these three contributions and how they counter traditional narratives available in the literature.

I hope this blog post can help dissertation and thesis writers as well as book manuscript writers develop their main core ideas and highlight their contributions, given that there is no

Precious thread by @raulpacheco on how to claim novelty and contribution. Methodology manuals rarely collect-curate-explain examples – so THIS is a rare and welcome methodological piece. https://t.co/Qq8WvdyaWG — Vinícius M. Kern 🏴 🇧🇷 🏴 (@vmkern) April 29, 2021

You can share this blog post on the following social networks by clicking on their icon.

Posted in academia .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – April 29, 2021

0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post .

Leave a Reply Cancel Some HTML is OK

Name (required)

Email (required, but never shared)

or, reply to this post via trackback .

About Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Find me online.

My Research Output

• Google Scholar Profile
• Academia.Edu
• ResearchGate

My Social Networks

• Polycentricity Network

Recent Posts

• My experience teaching residential academic writing workshops
• “State-Sponsored Activism: Bureaucrats and Social Movements in Brazil” – Jessica Rich – my reading notes
• Reading Like a Writer – Francine Prose – my reading notes
• Using the Pacheco-Vega workflows and frameworks to write and/or revise a scholarly book
• On framing, the value of narrative and storytelling in scholarly research, and the importance of asking the “what is this a story of” question

Recent Comments

• Alan Parker on Project management for academics I: Managing a research pipeline
• André Mascarenhas on On multiple academic projects’ management, time management and the realities of what we think we can accomplish in a certain period of time versus the realities of what we actually are able to.
• Hazera on On framing, the value of narrative and storytelling in scholarly research, and the importance of asking the “what is this a story of” question
• Kipi Fidelis on A sequential framework for teaching how to write good research questions
• Razib Paul on On framing, the value of narrative and storytelling in scholarly research, and the importance of asking the “what is this a story of” question

Follow me on Twitter:

Proudly powered by WordPress and Carrington .

Carrington Theme by Crowd Favorite

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian J Anaesth
• v.67(3); 2023 Mar
• PMC10220166

Novelty in research: A common reason for manuscript rejection!

Nishant kumar.

Department of Anaesthesia, Lady Hardinge Medical College and Associated Hospitals, New Delhi, India

Zulfiqar Ali

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Sher-i-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Rudrashish Haldar

2 Department of Anesthesiology, Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India

We often hear back from reviewers and editors of scientific journals that a particular manuscript (original research, case report, series or letter to the editor) has not been accepted because it lacks novelty. Though disheartening, the reason for such a response from said reviewers needs proper elucidation, as a moral obligation from the editorial board towards the authors of the manuscripts.

Research, as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary is ‘a detailed study of a subject, especially in order to discover (new) information or reach a (new) understanding’. [ 1 ] Novelty on the other hand is defined as ‘the quality of being new, original, or unusual’ or a ‘new or unfamiliar thing or experience’. Therefore, adding the adjective novel along with research is actually one of the most common redundancies that is similar to ‘return back’ or ‘revert back’ and denotes one and the same thing! [ 1 ]

Without delving into the nitty-gritty of the English language, novel research can be best described as one or more elements of research that are unique, such as a new methodology or a new observation that leads to the acquisition of new knowledge. It is this novelty that contributes to scientific progress. Since the main aim of research is to unravel what is unknown or to challenge views or ideas that may or may not be based on sound scientific principles, this exclusivity of novel research therefore allows us to expand our horizon beyond the realms of known domains. [ 2 ]

Having defined novelty in research, one of the most common mistakes that researchers commit is confusing novelty with originality. These terms are often used interchangeably. Originality implies the genuineness of the work and signifying that the said work has not been copied from any other source. Originality can always be examined by plagiarism checkers, and data is often analysed for duplication or fabrication only if there exists a certain doubt regarding its factuality. A study, therefore, can be mutually exclusive i.e. novel, but not original, or it can be original but not novel. It is the latter that reviewers and editors encounter most often.

The most common scenario encountered in anaesthesia related manuscripts that lacks novelty is the substitution of the same anaesthetic technique to different surgical procedures or patient populations (based on gender or age), with no expected change in the result. Here, the hypothesis and study designs are almost identical; however, the agents are replaced with different ones. A classic example is the comparison of the duration of analgesia with a longer acting analgesic or that of a local anaesthetic with a shorter one. The intrinsic properties of a drug are already well known, and, irrespective of it being an abdominal surgery or a limb surgery, the drugs are going to behave according to their pharmacological properties. Similarly, modern airway devices, such as video laryngoscopes, have conclusively been proven to be better aids than the conventional ones. A comparison of any new laryngoscope would definitely be a novel idea, in terms of whether it outperforms the existing device. If a certain number of studies, systematic reviews, or metanalyses have already been published on that particular device or drug, the study undertaken cannot be considered novel unless the results of the aforementioned study, utilising sound scientific principles, actually challenge or contradict the existing ideas.

Another common scenario faced by the reviewers or editors is the anaesthetic management of common or uncommon syndromes or diseases. They are often well described in literature, but when managed as per the existing guidelines and expected challenges they do not constitute novelty. A case report is novel and worth publishing if an unforeseen or unanticipated event has occurred or the case has been managed in a unique or unconventional manner or significant innovative skills or equipment have been employed. However, due caution has to be exercised as this should not lead the researcher to be overtly adventurous or show undue bravado by going against the principles of patient safety.

Now here lies the contradiction. We have been harping on novelty, introducing new ideas, and challenging old fixed ideas when conducting research and reporting cases. However, at the same time, due caution must be exercised, and one must not to be adventurous, unconventional, or bold. There is a fine line of distinction between these two. Herein comes the role of ethics, a separate topic of discussion altogether.

Research or advancement may not always be novel just by intervention or experimentation. Theoretical or hypothesis testing may also contribute paradigm-changing findings. Some of these may include thought-based experiments, rectifying or logical rearrangement of existing knowledge, re-evaluating space and time, utilising principles of philosophy, and analysing already existing data from a new and different perspective. [ 3 ] A thorough literature search is pivotal for designing a novel research project as it helps to understand known facts and gaps. An attempt at bridging identified research gaps adds to the novelty of the study. [ 2 ]

Another aspect of novel research is technological advancement. Most research starts from an idea, a thought, or an observation that further leads to hypothesis building, experimentation, data collection, analysis, and, finally, principle building. Technological advancement may stem from any of these phases. Novelty in research propels the industry to excel and outdo itself. [ 4 ]

Can novelty in research be measured? The answer is a resounding yes. Traditionally, it has been measured through peer reviews and by applying bibliometric measures such as citation or text data, keeping in mind their inherent limitations. However, word embedding is a new technique that can reliably measure novelty and even predict future citations. However, this is currently limited by publicly available word-embedding libraries and its high costs. [ 5 ]

To the average author and reader, novelty adds to their knowledge and makes them aware of complications that they may encounter. It offers a way out by conventional or different measures, within the realm of scientific, ethical and principles of social justice, should they get stuck, keeping in mind the quote of Hippocrates: ‘ Primum non nocere’ ( First, do no harm ).

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

What exactly constitutes as Novelty in academia? [closed]

In the world of academia what exactly counts as a novelty , when we talk about a novel idea or more specifically when we say Academic Novelty ?

I am trying to start writing on a particular topic (details of which I am not at liberty to divulge) but I am a bit confused about the aspect of novelty regarding that topic.

While discussing the general outline of the work, my advisor told me that what I am trying to do, does not count as a Academic Novelty. If it were a product for the industry, it would be a good innovation.

I was also told that I have to think more in an academic mindset instead of thinking in a product/industrial mindset.

I am very confused and I am in need of some guidance to figure out what to do ..

I will provide some context : I'm a M.Sc.(thesis) Computer Science student and although I have a journal publication prior to starting grad school, I do not have any publications (conference or journal) during my M.Sc. studies. I am rather eager to publish during my studies.

Can anyone please make explain in very simple terms about how I can resolve this concern of novelty?

P.S : I have another question about novelty as well, but I will ask it separately

• research-process
• graduate-school
• computer-science
• publishability

• 1 Ask a question, and if nobody knows the answer, you may have a novel idea/question. –  Prof. Santa Claus Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 19:51
• 1 You should ask your advisor these questions. That's what they're there for. –  astronat supports the strike Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 20:27
• @astronat, i did and i was advised to read more papers.. since i am still struggling to find out the solution, that's precisely the reason i asked this question here –  Yasir Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 21:08
• @Yasir I think the suggestion to read more papers is because published papers are examples of academic novelty. –  Bryan Krause ♦ Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 21:15

2 Answers 2

First, don't expect a hard boundary between the two concepts. It is a matter of more or less of one or the other. So, the "exactly" in your title can only be approximated.

While research in industry is now only occasionally anything beyond product research, it wasn't always that way. Some places still do research much like is done in academia. And some universities get involved in some product development, often through collaborations.

But, on the academic side, "novelty" is involved more with what is known or knowable or what it is possible to do. And on the industrial side novelty is more involved with doing things that might have economic value by being different or unique in some way. Some toasters, for example, have a "novel" design that appeals to people. But an academic paper on the design would be unlikely.

However, there are things that might be hard to classify. The transistor, for example, invented at the old Bell Labs was novel in the knowable, doable sense and could be considered valid academic research. The exploitation of the transistor to make useful products (faster, more reliable computers) was less likely to be have novelty in the academic sense thought it does in the industrial sense.

In CS, creation of the object oriented paradigm (Simula and/or Smalltalk, depending on your view) was academic research. Creating the Ruby programing language probably not so much. But not entirely one or the other.

So, in the final analysis, judgement is required and your advisor has made a judgement that your suggestion was too far from the (very) fuzzy line. That doesn't make it worthless, but it probably makes in impossible to develop into a dissertation, at least with that professor.

Your advisor has fallen into the trap of thinking there is a significant difference between academic and industrial/product thinking. The truth is that there is a continuum between the two and that little good comes from the lofty or pretentious imposition of bipolarity on that continuum. Such academic stereotyping often indicates unwillingness to apply one's work to the wider world, and a desire to inflate its importance within a limited self-defined sphere.

Some academic ideas are trivial and useless, some are far reaching and influential. Some industrial/applied ideas are trivial. Others pose intellectual challenges that easily exceed the self-chosen and self-defined themes of a limited academic idea.

I doubt there is a convenient catch-all definition of novelty that would allow you to categorize your work reliably. If the idea has not reached the published peer-reviewed literature or the authoritative textbooks it is probably academically novel.

• I see I piqued the ire of someone. I wonder why? It might be helpful to the questioner if they would be gracious enough to explain themselves. –  Anton Commented Jan 1, 2022 at 21:21

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged research-process graduate-school masters computer-science publishability .

• Featured on Meta
• We spent a sprint addressing your requests — here’s how it went
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• Are there any reasons I shouldn't remove this odd nook from a basement room?
• The meaning of "tarmac ticket"
• Is a spirit summoned with the Find Greater Steed spell affected by the Divine Word spell?
• Eliminate some numbers so that each of the three rows contains the numbers 1 through 9 each exactly once
• Where do we go if we gain knowledge of the absolute truth?
• Are the North Star and the moon ever visible in the night sky at the same time?
• Does there exist a nontrivial "good" set?
• Is it a security issue to expose PII on any publically accessible URL?
• Why does King Aegon speak to his dragon in the Common Tongue (English)?
• How to find the axle kit for a Shimano front hub
• One to N relationships to custom data
• Is an employment Conflict of Interest necessary when redundant with my Affiliation?
• Upgrading SQL Server Express 2008 R2 that seems to be tied with SQL Server Standard
• Equivalence of first/second choice with naive probability - I don't buy it
• Could a Black Market exist in a cashless society (digital currency)?
• Can a festival or a celebration like Halloween be "invented"?
• How to turn a sum into an integral?
• Does 誰と mean 誰とも?
• Sargent-Welch 1947 atomic model kit, design and use
• A model suffering from omitted variable bias can be said to be unidentified?
• Can I give a potential employer the LinkedIn address of my previous employer instead of his email address?
• How to choose between 3/4 and 6/8 time?
• Is prescreening not detrimental for paid surveys?
• Sci-fi movie - men in a bar in a small town, trapped by an alien

There is no denying that the Digital Era has impacted every aspect of the world, including academics and research. Many of these changes have brought significant advantages in global development, such as the ability to communicate with someone regardless of their location or to expand the reach of a business to engage a wide customer base. So much success has been created because of technology, but it has also brought a few disadvantages.

The global and competitive aspect of research means that scholars have to work a bit harder to stand out from the competition in their field if they want to make impacts and obtain research funding grants. To do this, innovation must be combined with novel approaches. But what defines novelty isn’t always cut and dried in the academic landscape.

Defining Novelty

For many people, the word “novelty” is associated with the newest toy on the shelves at Christmas. The connotation includes ideas of something that is superficial but shiny, exciting but quickly discarded after the initial “novelty” wears off. In research, this term means something completely different.

To a researcher and a funding source, a novel idea means something that is unique in the field or scope you’re analyzing. It can be a new methodology or a new design that sets the stage for new knowledge. It could be an approach that purposefully attempts to add more understanding to the current knowledge base. 

In general, it’s a characteristic of research that takes a topic that has already been the focus of experiments in the past and puts a new and original spin on it. Scholars can do this by changing factors like the design itself, the location or demographics of previous studies, or shifting the database entirely. The best way to know if your idea is novel or not is to do in-depth preliminary research and compare your idea with what is already out there on the subject.

Arguments Against Novelty and For Tradition

Scholars today find themselves facing an extra obstacle in the quest for publishing their work in a prestigious journal. Many of today’s publishing companies are looking for novelty over authenticity and expertise. This is because research journals want to publish work that is going to be cited, which is usually a topic that is new and exciting.

The arguments against this often support the claim that many of these “novel” studies don’t have enough support backing them because they focus on the “shiny” aspects of the research rather than the data that backs up the outcome. Funders award grants based on innovative ideas, but then the research that is necessary to substantiate these novel approaches and build on those precarious foundations is pushed to the side. When a grant request has ideas such as “innovative” and “novel” in it, it’s more likely to be approved, and then published, than those that build on those same approaches.

Why a Balanced Approach is Necessary

Some researchers argue that this push for novelty is exactly part of the reason why the field of science is currently in a reproducibility crisis. The focus on getting novel articles published has taken over the in-depth analysis of research in peer review. A balanced approach is required in order to ensure that progress continues to be made in all fields, but that the work published is put through rigorous review processes to ensure replicability and legitimacy.

When scholars see the reward that comes with inflated claims and specific adjectives to define their research as novel, the temptation arises to compromise the neutrality of the process. In the rush for reward, there is neglect in providing evidence to support each claim.

On the other hand, some journals are attempting a counterbalance to prevent weak articles. They want to ensure every idea that’s even remotely incomplete is addressed, which isn’t always feasible and can even be a deterrent to the reader. If a basic idea should be widely understood by someone reading the journal, the fact that the author lays it out anyway can be seen as condescending or a waste of the reader’s time.

Instead, a balanced approach is necessary, in which the editors attempt to scout out the long-term impact of a novel idea and how it might affect future studies. These newer ideas aren’t always backed with solid evidence at the time. It can take years for this to develop. But as a whole, robust work needs to be balanced with reproducible research.

• Afghanistan
• Åland Islands
• American Samoa
• Antigua and Barbuda
• Bolivia (Plurinational State of)
• Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Bouvet Island
• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Brunei Darussalam
• Burkina Faso
• Cayman Islands
• Central African Republic
• Christmas Island
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Congo (Democratic Republic of the)
• Cook Islands
• Côte d'Ivoire
• Curacao !Curaçao
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Equatorial Guinea
• Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
• Faroe Islands
• French Guiana
• French Polynesia
• French Southern Territories
• Guinea-Bissau
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Iran (Islamic Republic of)
• Isle of Man
• Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of)
• Korea (Republic of)
• Lao People's Democratic Republic
• Liechtenstein
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia (Federated States of)
• Moldova (Republic of)
• Netherlands
• New Caledonia
• New Zealand
• Norfolk Island
• North Macedonia
• Northern Mariana Islands
• Palestine, State of
• Papua New Guinea
• Philippines
• Puerto Rico
• Russian Federation
• Saint Barthélemy
• Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
• Saint Kitts and Nevis
• Saint Lucia
• Saint Martin (French part)
• Saint Pierre and Miquelon
• Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Sao Tome and Principe
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
• Solomon Islands
• South Africa
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• South Sudan
• Svalbard and Jan Mayen
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Tanzania, United Republic of
• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago
• Turkmenistan
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United Arab Emirates
• United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
• United States of America
• United States Minor Outlying Islands
• Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
• Virgin Islands (British)
• Virgin Islands (U.S.)
• Wallis and Futuna
• Western Sahara

The Psychology of Sexual Novelty

3 surprising strategies to consider for sexual novelty..

Posted July 2, 2024 | Reviewed by Ray Parker

• The Fundamentals of Sex
• Take our Romantic Personality Test
• Find a sex therapist near me
• Sexual novelty is a crucial predictor of sexual satisfaction.
• Traditional "tips and tricks" only take couples so far.
• Taking incremental steps, having a growth mindset, and trying new things outside the bedroom can help.

Open just about any women’s or men’s magazine, and you’ll likely find an article on ways to spice up your sex life. We see and hear it so much that our eyes will likely glaze over the headline. But, like it or not, research tells us that novelty is an important predictor of long-term sexual satisfaction. Understanding the psychology of sexual novelty might make it easier to attain.

Humans like stability and predictability, but we also crave novelty. It can be hard to reconcile these two seemingly opposing forces within a long-term partnership. The fact is, we are born curious and ready to explore the world around us. Novelty gives us a surge of dopamine , the reward chemical, which means that our brains naturally seek it out. According to curiosity researchers, four-year-olds ask an average of 400 questions per day, while middle schoolers ask an average of two questions per day. So what happens over time that causes us to stop exploring, particularly in the erotic realm?

Research suggests that passion fades in monogamous relationships due to a phenomenon known as the Coolidge effect , whereby sexual interest is only aroused when a new partner is introduced. Add to that sexual inhibition caused by things like culture, religion, past negative experiences, gender socialization, trauma , and poor self-esteem , and many people feel left with scant tools to add excitement. Search the internet, and you’ll be lucky to come across a good list of new things to try, but sexual novelty is about more than that. Let’s explore some elements of the psychology of sexual novelty you may not have considered.

1. Less is more. Did you know that it doesn’t take much to ignite the spark? A lot of people think they have to make the leap from vanilla sex to bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadomasochism (BDSM), but the research doesn’t support this notion. There is a phenomenon known as the challenge/skills balance that suggests we only need to do something four percent different from what we usually do to get “in the zone.” I write about this extensively in my new book, Anatomy of Desire , but essentially, when we do something too far out of our comfort zone, we feel anxious and scared. When what we are doing is too monotonous, we feel bored . Magic happens when the novelty of our actions is just four percent different from the norm. If, for example, you typically stabilize yourself on your forearms when in the missionary position, see what happens when you extend one arm and use it to hold your partner’s hand or the back of their head. As an added benefit, you’ll likely find that focus tightens. Why? Well, new things draw our attention . This is a wonderful bonus since so many people (especially women) struggle to focus during sex.

2. Change your mindset. You may have heard of a growth versus fixed mindset, but how much do you know about the difference between sexual destiny beliefs and sexual growth beliefs ? People who hold sexual destiny beliefs assume the amount of chemistry or sexual compatibility experienced early in a relationship defines it forever. In other words, they have a "set it and forget it" mentality, which makes it unlikely they'll try new things. People who hold sexual growth beliefs know that the quality of their sex life is a direct function of how much work they put into it. These kinds of people experience more relationship satisfaction, higher sexual satisfaction, more sexual desire, and more positive overall well-being. In other words, people with sexual growth beliefs lean into the experience of intentionally creating novelty because they know doing so will keep the sexual spark alive.

3. Try new things outside the bedroom. Look beyond ubiquitous “tips and tricks” and notice the effect that expanding your relationship outside the bedroom has on how you feel inside the bedroom. This is rooted in research known as “ self-expansion. ” This area of study found that couples who tried something new, like shucking an oyster for the first time, were 36 times more likely to have sex. Not only were these couples more sexually satisfied, but they felt happier in their relationships, too. What’s more, the results were sustained over time. When we do something new as an individual or part of a partnership, we tap into new and exciting parts of ourselves. Therein lies the novelty.

Embracing the psychology of sexual novelty can be a transformative approach to enhancing long-term sexual satisfaction. By understanding that even small changes can reignite passion, fostering a growth mindset towards sexual experiences, and exploring new activities outside the bedroom, couples can effectively balance stability and novelty. These strategies not only promote a more fulfilling sex life but also contribute to overall relationship happiness . As research indicates, maintaining a spark in a monogamous relationship requires intentional efforts and a willingness to explore new dimensions of intimacy . So, instead of scrolling past yet another article on spicing up your sex life, consider these unconventional strategies as pathways to a more vibrant and satisfying partnership.

Rosa, Marissa N., Matthews, Sarah A., Guiliano, Traci A., Thomas, Kayleigh H., Swift, Brook A., and Mills, Mattie M (2019). Encouraging erotic variety: Identifying correlates of, and strategies for promoting, sexual novelty in romantic relationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 146 (158-169).

Muise A, Harasymchuk C, Day LC, Bacev-Giles C, Gere J, Impett EA. Broadening your horizons: Self-expanding activities promote desire and satisfaction in established romantic relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2019 Feb;116(2):237-258. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000148. Epub 2018 Sep 27. PMID: 30265020.

Wilson, J. R., Kuehn, R. E., & Beach, F. A. (1963). Modification in the sexual behavior of male rats produced by changing the stimulus female. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology , 56 , 636.

Uppot A, Raposo S, Rosen NO, Corsini-Munt S, Balzarini R, Muise A. Responsiveness in the Face of Sexual Challenges: The Role of Sexual Growth and Destiny Beliefs. J Sex Res. 2024 Feb;61(2):228-245. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2023.2175194. Epub 2023 Feb 14. PMID: 36787122.

https://www.ted.com/talks/spencer_harrison_jon_cohen_curiosity_is_your_…

Emily Jamea, Ph.D., LMFT, LPC is a sex and relationship therapist with over a decade of experience. She maintains a busy private practice and researches how to create optimal relationships and sexual experiences.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience