2

When a journal is looking for "originality/novelty/newness," what are they looking for? Sure, this is a somewhat subjective question and open to personal opinion, but I think there are indeed cultural standards in the field which give some level of broad consensus, say, among editors at top journals.

What I can think of that would satisfy such adjectives would be things like:

  1. Solving an unsolved problem in an unexpected way.
  2. Creating a new concept that is useful for some problem.
  3. Solving an problem for which a solution already exists in a new and unexpected way.

But there has to be something else to it, e.g. the new method or concept used must meet some technical proficiency bar or something.

To what degree is extending previous results "novel?" Most research in every subject is extending previous results. Very rarely does something completely and exceptionally new and unexpected come around. Therefore, there must be some reasonable (even if fuzzy) bar set somewhere in the middle.

I'll give my example. I extended a (stochastic process/probability theory) result to a very large class of models using a method the original author did not use. This resulted on improved accuracy of nearly every result in the original paper and easier proofs. In some cases I get exact formulae where the original only had approximations (for that one model considered there, but mine now applies to an unlimited class of models).

I claim:

  • using methods that the previous paper did not use (nor any papers citing that original result)---I think it is two subfields that don't communicate much (but are related in obvious ways);
  • improving nearly every result;
  • for a much larger class of models;
  • inventing at least one new concept which was necessary for the result; should at least be somewhat close to the bar for novelty for a top journal. I know I'm aiming high and failure is the most likely end result!

Part of the problem is that my proofs are very easy (due to the use of said methods). The only hard parts using high powered machinery are already well-established. The most novel part is really in developing the new concept that allows the result and placing using methods of this other subfield.

So, yes, part of this is me griping, but the real question is the first one stated at the outset.

What to top mathematics journals think of as new/novel/original? I mean the hardest journals to get into in any arbitrary field, by whatever your favorite metric is.

jdods
  • 215
  • 1
    I am interested in the response to your post – Mary Maths May 04 '23 at 22:35
  • 7
    I upvoted because I think there is an interesting question underneath this that I would like to hear people's thoughts about. But the current version could be interpreted as 'why was my paper not accepted in a top journal', which is not suitable for this site (nor is it the question you're trying to ask). Why not try to find some examples from other people's work that showcase the same problem? (Maybe the process of doing so will answer your question already...) – R. van Dobben de Bruyn May 04 '23 at 22:35
  • 10
    "Top" journals want your papers to be fashionable, not original. Truly original research is almost always very hard to read, and surely very hard to review, because it requires understanding of new concepts (most mathematicians hate to do that). – Denis T May 04 '23 at 22:40
  • @R.vanDobbendeBruyn true, I am interested in my specific case, but that can't really be addressed without more detail, and the main question is still there. – jdods May 04 '23 at 22:48
  • 2
    Add to your list: posing new questions which are interesting for one reason or another. Maybe the question is answered in an interesting way, or not answered but shown to be connected to something else interesting, etc. – Zach Teitler May 04 '23 at 23:37
  • 3
    I think Gödel is a canonical guiding example; his work was (imo) indisputably novel. Something that immediately springs to mind is that he simultaneously understood something many intelligent people had been trying to understand for some time, and contradicted many of those people's previous fuzzy intuitions in that his new precise understanding revealed a truth contrary to the expectations of almost every other 'heavyweight' contemporary considering the matters at hand. – Alec Rhea May 05 '23 at 00:16
  • 1
    @AlecRhea that's a very high bar. The question is really about, say, the average paper in a top journal. – jdods May 05 '23 at 00:23
  • 3
    A high bar indeed; I find it apropos that inline citation reference to his papers takes the form [Göd 31]. – Alec Rhea May 05 '23 at 00:28
  • 1
    By definition, this question cannot be answered in detail. What originality and novelty mean in mathematics is that new ideas are being applied to problems to obtain solutions that were not available earlier. – Daniel Asimov May 05 '23 at 03:33
  • @DanielAsimov I agree with your definition but just don't know if that is actually the norm of the field. Surely there is an answer because the field does have social norms. Of course it will vary from person to person but I bet there is a reasonably broad consensus – jdods May 05 '23 at 04:05
  • I have voted to close, mainly for the reasons given by R. van Dobben deBruyn. As the question is written now, it is mostly a complaint about a rejection, and to the extent that it is not just a complaint, it is too broad, subjective, and argumentative for MO. I also agree with Denis T, in that "top" journals will rarely reject a paper such as yours primarily on the grounds of "lack of novelty"; they'll reject it because it's not a sufficiently "significant" or "important" result. – Timothy Chow May 05 '23 at 15:49
  • 1
    @jdods If you're looking for someone to make you feel better, then you may enjoy reading Doron Zeilberger's Opinion 81. – Timothy Chow May 05 '23 at 15:50
  • @TimothyChow That is an interesting perspective, but if a journal says it places primary emphasis on originality and importance, then you only are hitting at one half of that. So there is another question to ask, about "importance." – jdods May 05 '23 at 15:58
  • 1
    @jdods The analogous question about "importance" has already been asked here on MO. – Timothy Chow May 05 '23 at 16:07

0 Answers0