https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-04021-w
What could go wrong really?
We should really start pushing #replication studies, not novelty for the sake of novelty. Also, I thought we were past #novelty = #impact ...
@nicolaromano I agree. Utterly terrible idea. Never mind the fact that there is no commonly accepted definition of “novelty” within disciplines.
@daniel @nicolaromano I also agree. And there is also no commonly accepted definition of scientific or societal “impact” (e.g. result, output, outcome, effect) in research.
@jasemrau @daniel Agree! Also "The novelty score is calculated using an algorithm that compares the combinations of keywords and cited journals in a scientific manuscript with those in previous publications and projects the types of paper that will be published in the future". This is really calling for people to game the system by using buzzwords and citing high impact-factor (not necessarily high impact!) papers. Just need to get a list of high-novelty keywords... :/
@nicolaromano
🤮
@jasemrau