2

I can see several published research papers in SCI journals, even written by undergraduates, that perform a comparative study.

Many of the research papers published under this category evaluate several metrics on the alternative methods that exist in that domain and probably analyze those.

It seems to be just an experimental study followed by comparison. What is the novelty in such papers?

If no novelty exists, then why do good (SCI) journals accept those?

Improve this question
1
  • These papers are an experiment, followed by a comparison of multiple approaches?
    – Azor Ahai -him-
    Sep 29, 2020 at 15:55

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4

Comparing things is a method. You cannot judge novelty base on methods. Novelty is based on conclusions.

For example, if two papers have identical methods but different results leading to different conclusions, they would both be novel. However, they might not both be correct.

Improve this answer
3
  • What about papers that introduce novel methods? I am not in this area, but in my world this would be a strong basis for claiming novelty.
    – indigochild
    Sep 28, 2020 at 6:49
  • 1
    @indigochild Maybe for mathematicians, which I think the asker is not. For most other fields, a method becomes significant only when it has some benefit relative to other methods. The benefit is the conclusion.
    – Anonymous Physicist
    Sep 28, 2020 at 7:31
  • Even in mathematics, your method will have to withstand comparison with existing methods (which can be a comparison with the empty set if you use it to do something that hasn't been done before). If your method's only use is in producing more complicated, less elegant proofs of results already known by a given different method, then it might be a "novel method" in the strict sense of the word, but most reviewers will still recommend rejection for lack of novelty.
    – mlk
    Sep 28, 2020 at 14:09

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .