Beyond Single-Dimension Novelty: How Combinations of Theory, Method, and Results-based Novelty Shape Scientific Impact

Scientific novelty drives advances at the research frontier, yet it is also associated with heightened uncertainty and potential resistance from incumbent paradigms, leading to complex patterns of scientific impact. Prior studies have primarily ex-amined the relationship between a single dimension of novelty -- such as theoreti-cal, methodological, or results-based novelty -- and scientific impact. However, because scientific novelty is inherently multidimensional, focusing on isolated dimensions may obscure how different types of novelty jointly shape impact. Consequently, we know little about how combinations of novelty types influence scientific impact. To this end, we draw on a dataset of 15,322 articles published in Nature Communications. Using the DeepSeek-V3 model, we classify articles into three novelty dimensions based on the content of their Introduction sections: theoretical novelty, methodological novelty, and results-based novelty. These dimensions may coexist within the same article, forming distinct novelty configura-tions. Scientific impact is measured using five-year citation counts and indicators of whether an article belongs to the top 1% or top 10% highly cited papers. Descriptive results indicate that results-based novelty alone and the simultaneous presence of all three novelty types are the dominant configurations in the sample. Regression results further show that articles with results-based novelty only re-ceive significantly more citations and are more likely to rank among the top 1% and top 10% highly cited papers than articles exhibiting all three novelty types. These findings advance our understanding of how multidimensional novelty configurations shape knowledge diffusion.

NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.

Quantifying the Knowledge Proximity Between Academic and Industry Research: An Entity and Semantic Perspective

The academia and industry are characterized by a reciprocal shaping and dynamic feedback mechanism. Despite distinct institutional logics, they have adapted closely in collaborative publishing and talent mobility, demonstrating tension between institutional divergence and intensive collaboration. Existing studies on their knowledge proximity mainly rely on macro indicators such as the number of collaborative papers or patents, lacking an analysis of knowledge units in the literature. This has led to an insufficient grasp of fine-grained knowledge proximity between industry and academia, potentially undermining collaboration frameworks and resource allocation efficiency. To remedy the limitation, this study quantifies the trajectory of academia-industry co-evolution through fine-grained entities and semantic space. In the entity measurement part, we extract fine-grained knowledge entities via pre-trained models, measure sequence overlaps using cosine similarity, and analyze topological features through complex network analysis. At the semantic level, we employ unsupervised contrastive learning to quantify convergence in semantic spaces by measuring cross-institutional textual similarities. Finally, we use citation distribution patterns to examine correlations between bidirectional knowledge flows and similarity. Analysis reveals that knowledge proximity between academia and industry rises, particularly following technological change. This provides textual evidence of bidirectional adaptation in co-evolution. Additionally, academia's knowledge dominance weakens during technological paradigm shifts. The dataset and code for this paper can be accessed at https://github.com/tinierZhao/Academic-Industrial-associations.

Enhancing Academic Paper Recommendations Using Fine-Grained Knowledge Entities and Multifaceted Document Embeddings

In the era of explosive growth in academic literature, the burden of literature review on scholars are increasing. Proactively recommending academic papers that align with scholars' literature needs in the research process has become one of the crucial pathways to enhance research efficiency and stimulate innovative thinking. Current academic paper recommendation systems primarily focus on broad and coarse-grained suggestions based on general topic or field similarities. While these systems effectively identify related literature, they fall short in addressing scholars' more specific and fine-grained needs, such as locating papers that utilize particular research methods, or tackle distinct research tasks within the same topic. To meet the diverse and specific literature needs of scholars in the research process, this paper proposes a novel academic paper recommendation method. This approach embeds multidimensional information by integrating new types of fine-grained knowledge entities, title and abstract of document, and citation data. Recommendations are then generated by calculating the similarity between combined paper vectors. The proposed recommendation method was evaluated using the STM-KG dataset, a knowledge graph that incorporates scientific concepts derived from papers across ten distinct domains. The experimental results indicate that our method outperforms baseline models, achieving an average precision of 27.3% among the top 50 recommendations. This represents an improvement of 6.7% over existing approaches.

The Effect of Gender Diversity on Scientific Team Impact: A Team Roles Perspective

The influence of gender diversity on the success of scientific teams is of great interest to academia. However, prior findings remain inconsistent, and most studies operationalize diversity in aggregate terms, overlooking internal role differentiation. This limitation obscures a more nuanced understanding of how gender diversity shapes team impact. In particular, the effect of gender diversity across different team roles remains poorly understood. To this end, we define a scientific team as all coauthors of a paper and measure team impact through five-year citation counts. Using author contribution statements, we classified members into leadership and support roles. Drawing on more than 130,000 papers from PLOS journals, most of which are in biomedical-related disciplines, we employed multivariable regression to examine the association between gender diversity in these roles and team impact. Furthermore, we apply a threshold regression model to investigate how team size moderates this relationship. The results show that (1) the relationship between gender diversity and team impact follows an inverted U-shape for both leadership and support groups; (2) teams with an all-female leadership group and an all-male support group achieve higher impact than other team types. Interestingly, (3) the effect of leadership-group gender diversity is significantly negative for small teams but becomes positive and statistically insignificant in large teams. In contrast, the estimates for support-group gender diversity remain significant and positive, regardless of team size.

Automated Generation of Research Workflows from Academic Papers: A Full-text Mining Framework

The automated generation of research workflows is essential for improving the reproducibility of research and accelerating the paradigm of "AI for Science". However, existing methods typically extract merely fragmented procedural components and thus fail to capture complete research workflows. To address this gap, we propose an end-to-end framework that generates comprehensive, structured research workflows by mining full-text academic papers. As a case study in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) domain, our paragraph-centric approach first employs Positive-Unlabeled (PU) Learning with SciBERT to identify workflow-descriptive paragraphs, achieving an F1-score of 0.9772. Subsequently, we utilize Flan-T5 with prompt learning to generate workflow phrases from these paragraphs, yielding ROUGE-1, ROUGE-2, and ROUGE-L scores of 0.4543, 0.2877, and 0.4427, respectively. These phrases are then systematically categorized into data preparation, data processing, and data analysis stages using ChatGPT with few-shot learning, achieving a classification precision of 0.958. By mapping categorized phrases to their document locations in the documents, we finally generate readable visual flowcharts of the entire research workflows. This approach facilitates the analysis of workflows derived from an NLP corpus and reveals key methodological shifts over the past two decades, including the increasing emphasis on data analysis and the transition from feature engineering to ablation studies. Our work offers a validated technical framework for automated workflow generation, along with a novel, process-oriented perspective for the empirical investigation of evolving scientific paradigms. Source code and data are available at: https://github.com/ZH-heng/research_workflow.

SciNLP: A Domain-Specific Benchmark for Full-Text Scientific Entity and Relation Extraction in NLP

Structured information extraction from scientific literature is crucial for capturing core concepts and emerging trends in specialized fields. While existing datasets aid model development, most focus on specific publication sections due to domain complexity and the high cost of annotating scientific texts. To address this limitation, we introduce SciNLP - a specialized benchmark for full-text entity and relation extraction in the Natural Language Processing (NLP) domain. The dataset comprises 60 manually annotated full-text NLP publications, covering 7,072 entities and 1,826 relations. Compared to existing research, SciNLP is the first dataset providing full-text annotations of entities and their relationships in the NLP domain. To validate the effectiveness of SciNLP, we conducted comparative experiments with similar datasets and evaluated the performance of state-of-the-art supervised models on this dataset. Results reveal varying extraction capabilities of existing models across academic texts of different lengths. Cross-comparisons with existing datasets show that SciNLP achieves significant performance improvements on certain baseline models. Using models trained on SciNLP, we implemented automatic construction of a fine-grained knowledge graph for the NLP domain. Our KG has an average node degree of 3.2 per entity, indicating rich semantic topological information that enhances downstream applications. The dataset is publicly available at https://github.com/AKADDC/SciNLP.

SurveyGen: Quality-Aware Scientific Survey Generation with Large Language Models

Automatic survey generation has emerged as a key task in scientific document processing. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating survey texts, the lack of standardized evaluation datasets critically hampers rigorous assessment of their performance against human-written surveys. In this work, we present SurveyGen, a large-scale dataset comprising over 4,200 human-written surveys across diverse scientific domains, along with 242,143 cited references and extensive quality-related metadata for both the surveys and the cited papers. Leveraging this resource, we build QUAL-SG, a novel quality-aware framework for survey generation that enhances the standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline by incorporating quality-aware indicators into literature retrieval to assess and select higher-quality source papers. Using this dataset and framework, we systematically evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs under varying levels of human involvement - from fully automatic generation to human-guided writing. Experimental results and human evaluations show that while semi-automatic pipelines can achieve partially competitive outcomes, fully automatic survey generation still suffers from low citation quality and limited critical analysis.

SC4ANM: Identifying Optimal Section Combinations for Automated Novelty Prediction in Academic Papers

Novelty is a core component of academic papers, and there are multiple perspectives on the assessment of novelty. Existing methods often focus on word or entity combinations, which provide limited insights. The content related to a paper's novelty is typically distributed across different core sections, e.g., Introduction, Methodology and Results. Therefore, exploring the optimal combination of sections for evaluating the novelty of a paper is important for advancing automated novelty assessment. In this paper, we utilize different combinations of sections from academic papers as inputs to drive language models to predict novelty scores. We then analyze the results to determine the optimal section combinations for novelty score prediction. We first employ natural language processing techniques to identify the sectional structure of academic papers, categorizing them into introduction, methods, results, and discussion (IMRaD). Subsequently, we used different combinations of these sections (e.g., introduction and methods) as inputs for pretrained language models (PLMs) and large language models (LLMs), employing novelty scores provided by human expert reviewers as ground truth labels to obtain prediction results. The results indicate that using introduction, results and discussion is most appropriate for assessing the novelty of a paper, while the use of the entire text does not yield significant results. Furthermore, based on the results of the PLMs and LLMs, the introduction and results appear to be the most important section for the task of novelty score prediction. The code and dataset for this paper can be accessed at https://github.com/njust-winchy/SC4ANM.

Are the confidence scores of reviewers consistent with the review content? Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI

Peer review is vital in academia for evaluating research quality. Top AI conferences use reviewer confidence scores to ensure review reliability, but existing studies lack fine-grained analysis of text-score consistency, potentially missing key details. This work assesses consistency at word, sentence, and aspect levels using deep learning and NLP conference review data. We employ deep learning to detect hedge sentences and aspects, then analyze report length, hedge word/sentence frequency, aspect mentions, and sentiment to evaluate text-score alignment. Correlation, significance, and regression tests examine confidence scores' impact on paper outcomes. Results show high text-score consistency across all levels, with regression revealing higher confidence scores correlate with paper rejection, validating expert assessments and peer review fairness.