Timeline for Is it bad form to use the word “novel” when describing your own work in a paper?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7, 2023 at 17:17 | comment | added | HelloGoodbye | @corsiKa That's not at all for sure. The reviewers may themselves not be very familiar with the specific methodology you are using, even if they are very familiar with the topic in general. | |
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:49 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://academia.stackexchange.com/ with https://academia.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| May 31, 2016 at 18:35 | comment | added | badroit | @corsiKa, the problem in some cases (as pointed out by an answer further down) is that the reviewer will often be less familiar with what has been done before than the author. Hence the author making explicit what they believe to be the new contribution, is, in my estimation, not only useful, but essential, particularly for peer-review. That's why I find the guidelines above so confusing; yes the paper should contain new results, but that does not imply it is not helpful for the authors to clarify what parts they believe are new. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 20:45 | comment | added | corsiKa | Let your research speak for itself. If it's worthy of such titles, it will gain them in peer review. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 16:02 | vote | accept | user2813274 | ||
| Sep 4, 2015 at 13:28 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @Raphael: Plausible deniability? – If you so wish, yes. You avoid to make any claims that could be wrong. It’s like claiming that your method is the best in existence. Moreover, there is no real need for the word. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 13:11 | comment | added | Raphael | @Wrzlprmft If the implication of nothing is always "novel", then where's the difference? Plausible deniability? | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 12:46 | comment | added | Wrzlprmft♦ | @Raphael: If your algorithm expands another algorithm, you have to write this. It’s more or less the difference between writing “we present an expansion of Huffleduff’s algorithm” and “we present an algorithm”. No need for the word novel. By the way, almost all papers I have read managed to make clear their contribution without using the words new, novel or similar. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 11:32 | comment | added | Kimball | To wit, I write things like "This type of result seems novel," particularly to contrast with other results in the paper which have existing analogues. | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 11:04 | comment | added | Raphael | I wonder. Does incremental research (always) lead to novel concepts? In CS, "a novel algorithm" would imply that there is some new idea, whereas "an algorithm" may be a slightly improved form of a known idea. So, I think using such words can be useful for stressing "this is not an increment, but an independent, novel [sic] idea". | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 7:41 | comment | added | 299792458 | Almost immediately when I read the question, this APS policy came up in my mind, and if you hadn't mentioned it here, I would've posted another answer including it. In fact, I will mention that in one of my recent articles published in a Physical Review journal, one of my original sentences in the manuscript was modified at the proofing stage, on account of (and citing) this policy. So, even if an author includes such claims of novelty, they will most probably be removed before the publication. :) | |
| Sep 4, 2015 at 6:46 | history | edited | Wrzlprmft♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 45 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2015 at 6:40 | history | answered | Wrzlprmft♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |