Shah等人提出的新颖性指标的使用:从文献中出现了什么?

IF 1.8 Q3 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING
Design Science Pub Date : 2023-05-05 DOI:10.1017/dsj.2023.9
Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. Rotini
{"title":"Shah等人提出的新颖性指标的使用:从文献中出现了什么?","authors":"Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. Rotini","doi":"10.1017/dsj.2023.9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several concepts and types of procedures for assessing novelty and related concepts exist in the literature. Among them, the two approaches originally proposed by Shah and colleagues are often considered by scholars. These metrics rely on well-defined novelty types and a specific concept of novelty; however, more than 20 years after the first publication, it is still not clear whether and to what extent these metrics are actually used, why they are used and how. Through a comprehensive review of the papers citing the main work of Shah, Vargas-Hernandez & Smith (2003a, 2003b) (the main study where the metrics are comprehensively described and applied), the present work aims to bridge this gap. The results highlight that only a few of the citing papers actually use the assessment approach proposed by Shah et al. and that a nonnegligible number uses a modified or adapted version of the original metrics. Furthermore, several criticalities in the application of the metrics have been uncovered, which are expected to provide relevant information for scholars involved in reliable and repeatable novelty assessments.","PeriodicalId":54146,"journal":{"name":"Design Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uses of the novelty metrics proposed by Shah et al.: what emerges from the literature?\",\"authors\":\"Lorenzo Fiorineschi, F. Rotini\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/dsj.2023.9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Several concepts and types of procedures for assessing novelty and related concepts exist in the literature. Among them, the two approaches originally proposed by Shah and colleagues are often considered by scholars. These metrics rely on well-defined novelty types and a specific concept of novelty; however, more than 20 years after the first publication, it is still not clear whether and to what extent these metrics are actually used, why they are used and how. Through a comprehensive review of the papers citing the main work of Shah, Vargas-Hernandez & Smith (2003a, 2003b) (the main study where the metrics are comprehensively described and applied), the present work aims to bridge this gap. The results highlight that only a few of the citing papers actually use the assessment approach proposed by Shah et al. and that a nonnegligible number uses a modified or adapted version of the original metrics. Furthermore, several criticalities in the application of the metrics have been uncovered, which are expected to provide relevant information for scholars involved in reliable and repeatable novelty assessments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54146,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2023.9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献中存在一些评估新颖性的概念和程序类型以及相关概念。其中,Shah及其同事最初提出的两种方法经常被学者们所考虑。这些指标依赖于定义良好的新颖性类型和特定的新颖性概念;然而,在首次发表20多年后,人们仍然不清楚这些指标是否以及在多大程度上被实际使用,为什么被使用以及如何被使用。通过对引用Shah, Vargas-Hernandez和Smith (2003a, 2003b)主要工作的论文的全面审查(主要研究中,指标被全面描述和应用),本工作旨在弥合这一差距。结果强调,只有少数引用论文实际上使用了Shah等人提出的评估方法,而不可忽略的数量使用了原始指标的修改或改编版本。此外,还发现了这些指标应用中的几个关键问题,预计将为参与可靠和可重复的新颖性评估的学者提供相关信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Uses of the novelty metrics proposed by Shah et al.: what emerges from the literature?
Abstract Several concepts and types of procedures for assessing novelty and related concepts exist in the literature. Among them, the two approaches originally proposed by Shah and colleagues are often considered by scholars. These metrics rely on well-defined novelty types and a specific concept of novelty; however, more than 20 years after the first publication, it is still not clear whether and to what extent these metrics are actually used, why they are used and how. Through a comprehensive review of the papers citing the main work of Shah, Vargas-Hernandez & Smith (2003a, 2003b) (the main study where the metrics are comprehensively described and applied), the present work aims to bridge this gap. The results highlight that only a few of the citing papers actually use the assessment approach proposed by Shah et al. and that a nonnegligible number uses a modified or adapted version of the original metrics. Furthermore, several criticalities in the application of the metrics have been uncovered, which are expected to provide relevant information for scholars involved in reliable and repeatable novelty assessments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Design Science
Design Science ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING-
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
19
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信