研究作者与审稿人对论文新颖性的认知差异，发现宣传语言在中等创新论文中最影响评价。
Examining the Cognitive Gap Between Authors and Peer Reviewers on Academic Paper Novelty
- 分析1.5万篇论文及审稿意见，对比作者宣传与审稿人评估的新颖性判断。
- 高创新论文用强宣传语言获更好评价，低创新论文则无明显影响。
- 中等创新论文的宣传语言显著引发审稿人分歧，是评价灰色地带。
新颖性是评估学术论文质量的关键指标。学者们在标题、摘要和引言中极力突出工作的新颖性，而同行评审作为科学严谨性的守门人，会严格评估论文的新颖性，但作者自我宣传与评审评价之间可能存在认知差距。为探究这一现象，我们分析了2016至2021年发表于《自然·通讯》的15,328篇论文及其同行评审意见。结果表明，作者与审稿人均重视结果导向的创新，但审稿人视角更全面。通过将宣传强度与论文内在新颖性对比，发现其影响取决于实际创新水平：高度创新的论文因更强的宣传语言获得更积极评价；而宣传语言对中等创新论文的审稿人新颖性判断有显著影响，导致更高分歧，对极低或极高创新论文则影响微弱。这揭示了宣传语言在学术评价灰色区域中的关键作用。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。