相关论文: Are We Truly Innovating? A Qualitative and Quantit…
The accelerating pace of scientific publication makes it difficult to identify truly original research among incremental work. We propose a framework for estimating the conceptual novelty of research papers by combining semantic…
Peer review in academic research aims not only to ensure factual correctness but also to identify work of high scientific potential that can shape future research directions. This task is especially critical in fast-moving fields such as…
Creativity assessment in science and engineering is increasingly based on both human and AI judgment, but the cognitive processes and biases behind these evaluations remain poorly understood. We conducted two experiments examining how…
Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, we conducted a…
Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of…
Novelty assessment is a central yet understudied aspect of peer review, particularly in high volume fields like NLP where reviewer capacity is increasingly strained. We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that…
Assessing the novelty of patent claims is a critical yet challenging task traditionally performed by patent examiners. While advancements in NLP have enabled progress in various patent-related tasks, novelty assessment remains unexplored.…
Judging the novelty of research ideas is crucial for advancing science, enabling the identification of unexplored directions, and ensuring contributions meaningfully extend existing knowledge rather than reiterate minor variations. However,…
Novelty is a crucial criterion in the peer review process for evaluating academic papers. Traditionally, it's judged by experts or measure by unique reference combinations. Both methods have limitations: experts have limited knowledge, and…
Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from…
Novelty evaluation is vital for the promotion and management of innovation. With the advancement of information techniques and the open data movement, some progress has been made in novelty measurements. Tracking and reviewing novelty…
This study proposes Argument Rarity-based Originality Assessment (AROA), a framework for automatically evaluating argumentative originality in student essays. AROA defines originality as rarity within a reference corpus and evaluates it…
Novelty, akin to gene mutation in evolution, opens possibilities for scholarly advancement. Although peer review remains the gold standard for evaluating novelty in scholarly communication and resource allocation, the vast volume of…
Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of…
We examine whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems generate truly novel ideas rather than merely regurgitating patterns learned during training. Utilizing a novel experimental design, we task an AI with generating project titles for…
As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for ideation and scientific discovery, it is important to evaluate their ability to generate novel output. Prior work evaluates novelty as originality with respect to model training…
Many people are interested in ChatGPT since it has become a prominent AIGC model that provides high-quality responses in various contexts, such as software development and maintenance. Misuse of ChatGPT might cause significant issues,…
Evaluating novelty is critical yet challenging in peer review, as reviewers must assess submissions against a vast, rapidly evolving literature. This report presents OpenNovelty, an LLM-powered agentic system for transparent, evidence-based…
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden…
Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer…