cs.DLMar 16, 2026

Exploring Novelty Differences between Industry and Academia: A Knowledge Entity-centric Perspective

Authors: Hongye Zhao, Yi Zhao, Chengzhi Zhang

Organizations: a Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094 China · b School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei, 230601, China.

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Academia and industry each possess distinct advantages in advancing technological progress. Academia's core mission is to promote open dissemination of research results and drive disciplinary progress. The industry values knowledge appropriability and core competitiveness, yet actively engages in open practices like academic conferences and platform sharing, creating a knowledge strategy paradox. Highly novel and publicly accessible knowledge serves as the driving force behind technological advancement. However, it remains unclear whether industry or academia can produce more novel research outcomes. Some studies argue that academia tends to generate more novel ideas, while others suggest that industry researchers are more likely to drive breakthroughs. Previous studies have been limited by data sources and inconsistent measures of novelty. To address these gaps, this study conducts an analysis using four types of fine-grained knowledge entities (Method, Tool, Dataset, Metric), calculates semantic distances between entities within a unified semantic space to quantify novelty, and achieves comparability of novelty across different types of literature. Then, a regression model is constructed to analyze the differences in publication novelty between industry and academia. The results indicate that academia demonstrates higher novelty outputs, which is particularly evident in patents. At the entity level, both academia and industry emphasize method-driven advancements in papers, while industry holds a unique advantage in datasets. Additionally, academia-industry collaboration has a limited effect on enhancing the novelty of research papers, but it helps to enhance the novelty of patents. We release our data and associated codes at https://github.com/tinierZhao/entity_novelty.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jun 30, 2026

Exploring the relationship between team institutional composition and novelty in academic papers based on fine-grained knowledge entities

The composition of author teams is an important factor influencing the novelty of academic papers. However, existing studies have paid limited attention to the role of institutional composition, and most novelty measures remain at a general level, making it difficult to explain the specific sources and types of novelty in papers. Taking the field of natural language processing as an example, this study investigates the relationship between team institutional composition and the fine-grained novelty of academic papers. Author teams are classified into three types: academic institutions, industrial institutions, and mixed academic and industrial institutions. Four types of fine-grained knowledge entities are extracted from full-text papers, including methods, datasets, tools, and metrics. The novelty of papers is then measured based on entity combinations, and pairwise combinations of different entity types are further analyzed to examine their contributions to novel papers. The results show that, in the field of natural language processing, collaboration between industrial and academic institutions is more likely to produce novel papers than purely industrial collaboration. From the perspective of fine-grained knowledge entities, mixed academic and industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-metric combinations, whereas industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-tool combinations. This study reveals the relationship between institutional team composition and paper novelty through fine-grained novelty measurement, providing useful evidence for improving paper quality and promoting industry-academia-research collaboration.

Ziling Chen, Chengzhi Zhang, Heng Zhang +3

Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

Topic pending
AskPDF
Apr 14, 2026

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.

Yi Zhao, Yang Chenggang, Yuzhuo Wang +3

School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei 230039, China · Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, 210094, China · School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China

Topic pending
AskPDF
Sep 4, 2026

Measuring the Novelty of Biomedical Papers Using the Latent Distances between Knowledge Units

Measuring the novelty of scientific papers is a central concern in research evaluation and scientometrics. From a recombination perspective, prior studies have largely focused on the co-occurrence of knowledge units to assess the novelty of scientific papers. However, these studies often overlook other relationships between knowledge units. This narrow view may result in inaccurate or incomplete evaluations of novelty for scientific papers. To fill this gap, this study introduces a comprehensive novelty measurement that incorporates three types of relationships between knowledge units: network, semantic, and hierarchical. These relationships are used to quantify the latent distances among knowledge units. Using a dataset of 142,036 articles published in PLoS ONE and a validation dataset from the H1 Connect platform, our results demonstrate that (1) each relationship type captures distinct latent distances between MeSH terms; (2) compared to the widely used indicators proposed by Uzzi et al. (2013), our measures show stronger alignment with peer judgements; and (3) combining all three distance metrics yields more effective identification of novel papers than using any single perspective alone.

Yi Zhao, Heng Zhang, Yuzhuo Wang +3

School of Management, Anhui University, Hefei, China · School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, China · Department of Information Management, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

Bibliometric Analysis
AskPDF