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

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.

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

The rapid growth of scientific literature calls for automated methods to assess and predict research impact. Prior work has largely focused on citation-based metrics, leaving limited evaluation of models' capability to reason about other impact dimensions. To this end, we introduce SciImpact, a large-scale, multi-dimensional benchmark for scientific impact prediction spanning 19 fields. SciImpact captures various forms of scientific influence, ranging from citation counts to award recognition, media attention, patent reference, and artifact adoption, by integrating heterogeneous data sources and targeted web crawling. It comprises 215,928 contrastive paper pairs reflecting meaningful impact differences in both short-term (e.g., Best Paper Award) and long-term settings (e.g., Nobel Prize). We evaluate 11 widely used large language models (LLMs) on SciImpact. Results show that off-the-shelf models exhibit substantial variability across dimensions and fields, while multi-task supervised fine-tuning consistently enables smaller LLMs (e.g., 4B) to markedly outperform much larger models (e.g., 30B) and surpass powerful closed-source LLMs (e.g., o4-mini). These results establish SciImpact as a challenging benchmark and demonstrate its value for multi-dimensional, multi-field scientific impact prediction. Our project homepage is https://flypig23.github.io/sciimpact-homepage/