Comprehensive foreign media reports for a long time，The academic community has always been worried that peer reviews are more popular with conservative scientific research projects。But according to the official website of the University of Michigan, recently reported，Professor Misha Teplitskiy, a professor at the School of Information of the School, studied the tendency of 49 life sciences and physics science journals and found out，Converse concerns of the concerns of society，Parent reviews of scientific journals prefer novel research with good development trends。This research results "Is Novel Research worthwhile —— Female Evaluation evidence bet365 best casino games from 49 Journals" published in the recent issue of "National Academy of Sciences"。

Toplitzki and others explored the relationship between the novelty of the thesis and the acceptance of scientific journals。The reference object of the experiment includes 20538 papers submitted to the "Cell" and "Cell Report" journals from 2013 to 2018，and 6785 papers submitted to the 47th journals under the British Institute of Physics Press in 2018。Researchers judge the novelty and traditional nature of papers based on the journal portfolio in the reference list。Top Litzki discovery，The higher the novelty of the paper，The higher the acceptance of its acceptance。In addition，The differences between the opinions between the reviewers of the peers are not related to the novelty or traditional nature of the submission; the journal editor will even choose a more novel bet365 live casino games research results based on the advice of the reviewer。

pragmatic，Early research results of scientific research projects have great uncertainty，Not easy to be optimistic about the journal，Even it will even cause the internal views of the reviewers to be uniform。But，Toplitzki pointed out，If the premise of publishing papers is to reach consensus from peer review，So anti -novel prejudice is more likely to exist at the organization level，Not the personal level。Toplitzki showed that it was a study，Evaluation of innovative scientific papers will not significantly increase the differences between the reviewers。This can be seen，Conservatism in the scientific community is unlikely that it is caused by the review。

Toplitzki thinks，There are still many limitations in this research，Among them, two of them are related to data collection Bet365 app download and measurement。First，The experimental data does not include the peer review of the reviewer of the Cell Report; these data may be strengthened or weakened by researchers' free tailoring of journal editing、Different acceptance of novelty and disagreement。Next，Researchers mainly calculate "novelty" and "traditional"。Because many versions returned by the journal cannot be associated with the final version，Toplitzki and others exclude them from the data，Do not calculate their novelty。Last，This study uses quantitative measurement method，Definition of abstract structures such as "novelty" and "quality" of thesis。Depending on qualitative judgment may have prejudice due to the influence of novelty or other factors，Future scholars need to further standardize and verify these measured methods。

In addition，Toplitzki bet365 live casino games thinks，On the one hand，The academic community needs more transparent data，To understand the understanding of different journals for novelty and traditional nature。For example，Editors of some top journals may be distinguished from the journals to distinguish with competitors，Favorite novel and not like traditional。On the other hand，The reviewers of top journals such as "Cell" may have enough time and professional knowledge to objectively evaluate novel but complex projects，Therefore, the acceptance of innovative scientific research papers is relatively high。other，Reference data from scientific research journals other than life science and physics science，The generality of helping to improve the conclusion of this research。

(Liu Yuwei/Compilation)