This newspaper comprehensively reports foreign media reports for a long time，The academic community has been worried that peer review favors conservative scientific research projects。But according to a recent report from the official website of the University of Michigan，Misha Teplitskiy, a professor at the School of Information at the school, and others studied the peer review tendencies of 49 life sciences and physical science app bet365 download and found that，Contrary to popular concerns，Peer review in scientific app bet365 download favors novel research with good development momentum。The research result "Is Novel Research Worth Doing—Peer Review Evidence from 49 app bet365 download" was published in the latest issue of "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences"。

Teplitsky et al. explored the relationship between a paper’s novelty and acceptance in scientific app bet365 download。The reference objects of this experiment include 20538 papers submitted to the app bet365 download Cell and Cell Reports from 2013 to 2018，and 6785 papers submitted to 47 app bet365 download of the British Physical Society Press in 2018。Researchers judge a paper’s novelty and conventionality based on the combination of app bet365 download in the reference list。Discovered by Teplitsky，The higher the novelty of the paper，The higher its acceptance rate。In addition，Disagreement among peer reviewers is not related to the novelty or conventionality of the submission；Journal editors will even select more novel research results based on reviewers’ suggestions。

Admittedly，The early research results of scientific research projects are highly uncertain，Not easily favored by app bet365 download，It may even cause disagreement among the reviewers。However，Teplitsky pointed out，If the prerequisite for publishing a paper is reaching a consensus through peer review，Then anti-novelty bias is more likely to exist at the organizational level，rather than on a personal level。Teplitsky showed through research，Evaluating innovative scientific papers does not significantly increase disagreement among reviewers。It can be seen from this，Conservatism in science is unlikely to be caused by peer review。

Teplitzky thinks，This study also has many limitations，And two of them are related to data collection and measurement。First，This experimental data does not include peer review by Cell Reports reviewers；These data may strengthen or weaken researchers’ discretion over journal editors、Acceptance of novelty and disagreement。Secondly，Researchers calculate “novelty” and “conventionality” primarily based on the published version of the submitted paper。Because many versions returned by app bet365 download cannot be related to the final published version，Teplitsky et al. excluded them from the data，Do not count their novelty。final，This study uses quantitative measurement methods，Defines abstract structures such as "novelty" and "quality" of the paper。Reliance on qualitative judgments may be biased by novelty or other factors，Future scholars need to further standardize and validate these measurement methods。

In addition，Teplitsky thinks，On the one hand，The academic community needs more transparent data，To understand the understanding of novelty and tradition in different app bet365 download。For example，Editors of some top app bet365 download may want to differentiate the journal from competitors，Prefer novelty to tradition。On the other hand，Reviewers at top app bet365 download such as Cell may have sufficient time and expertise to objectively evaluate novel but complex projects，Therefore, the acceptance of innovative scientific research papers is relatively high。In addition，Refer to scientific research journal data other than life sciences and physical sciences，Helps improve the generality of the study’s conclusions。

(app bet365 download/Compiler)