Exploring Novelty Differences between Industry and Academia: A Knowledge Entity-centric Perspective

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.19319v1
• Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:41:51 GMT
• Title: Exploring Novelty Differences between Industry and Academia: A Knowledge Entity-centric Perspective
• Abstract summary: This study conducts an analysis using four types of fine-grained knowledge entities.<n>It calculates semantic distances between entities within a unified semantic space to quantify novelty.<n>A regression model is constructed to analyze the differences in publication novelty between industry and academia.
• Score: 7.232456257799662
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Academia and industry each possess distinct advantages in advancing technological progress. Academia's core mission is to promote open dissemination of research results and drive disciplinary progress. The industry values knowledge appropriability and core competitiveness, yet actively engages in open practices like academic conferences and platform sharing, creating a knowledge strategy paradox. Highly novel and publicly accessible knowledge serves as the driving force behind technological advancement. However, it remains unclear whether industry or academia can produce more novel research outcomes. Some studies argue that academia tends to generate more novel ideas, while others suggest that industry researchers are more likely to drive breakthroughs. Previous studies have been limited by data sources and inconsistent measures of novelty. To address these gaps, this study conducts an analysis using four types of fine-grained knowledge entities (Method, Tool, Dataset, Metric), calculates semantic distances between entities within a unified semantic space to quantify novelty, and achieves comparability of novelty across different types of literature. Then, a regression model is constructed to analyze the differences in publication novelty between industry and academia. The results indicate that academia demonstrates higher novelty outputs, which is particularly evident in patents. At the entity level, both academia and industry emphasize method-driven advancements in papers, while industry holds a unique advantage in datasets. Additionally, academia-industry collaboration has a limited effect on enhancing the novelty of research papers, but it helps to enhance the novelty of patents. We release our data and associated codes at https://github.com/tinierZhao/entity_novelty.

Related papers

• Quantifying the Knowledge Proximity Between Academic and Industry Research: An Entity and Semantic Perspective [7.232456257799662]
  The academia and industry are characterized by a reciprocal shaping and dynamic feedback mechanism.<n>Existing studies on their knowledge proximity mainly rely on macro indicators such as the number of collaborative papers or patents.<n>This study quantifies the trajectory of academia-industry co-evolution through fine-grained entities and semantic space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T02:12:47Z)
• Accelerating Scientific Research with Gemini: Case Studies and Common Techniques [105.15622072347811]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened new avenues for accelerating scientific research.<n>We present a collection of case studies demonstrating how researchers have successfully collaborated with advanced AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T18:56:17Z)
• Triadic Novelty: A Typology and Measurement Framework for Recognizing Novel Contributions in Science [0.8249694498830561]
  Existing metrics conflate novelty with popularity, privileging ideas that fit existing paradigms over those that challenge them.<n>This study develops a theory-driven framework to better understand how different types of novelty emerge, take hold, and receive recognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-21T23:09:04Z)
• Transforming Science with Large Language Models: A Survey on AI-assisted Scientific Discovery, Experimentation, Content Generation, and Evaluation [58.064940977804596]
  A plethora of new AI models and tools has been proposed, promising to empower researchers and academics worldwide to conduct their research more effectively and efficiently.<n>Ethical concerns regarding shortcomings of these tools and potential for misuse take a particularly prominent place in our discussion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T18:26:45Z)
• MASSW: A New Dataset and Benchmark Tasks for AI-Assisted Scientific Workflows [58.56005277371235]
  We introduce MASSW, a comprehensive text dataset on Multi-Aspect Summarization of ScientificAspects. MASSW includes more than 152,000 peer-reviewed publications from 17 leading computer science conferences spanning the past 50 years. We demonstrate the utility of MASSW through multiple novel machine-learning tasks that can be benchmarked using this new dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T15:19:09Z)
• The Clever Hans Mirage: A Comprehensive Survey on Spurious Correlations in Machine Learning [78.13481522957552]
  Machine learning models are sensitive to spurious correlations between non-essential features of the inputs and the corresponding labels.<n>This paper provides a comprehensive survey of this emerging issue, along with a fine-grained taxonomy of existing state-of-the-art methods for addressing spurious correlations in machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T04:49:34Z)
• The complementary contributions of academia and industry to AI research [0.0]
  We characterize the impact and type of AI produced by industry and academia over the last 25 years. We find that articles published by industry teams tend to get greater attention, with a higher chance of being highly cited and citation-disruptive. We find that academic-industry collaborations struggle to replicate the novelty of academic teams and tend to look similar to industry teams.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T03:08:13Z)
• The Compute Divide in Machine Learning: A Threat to Academic Contribution and Scrutiny? [1.0985060632689174]
  We show that a compute divide has coincided with a reduced representation of academic-only research teams in compute intensive research topics. To address the challenges arising from this trend, we recommend approaches aimed at thoughtfully expanding academic insights.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T01:26:11Z)
• Citation Trajectory Prediction via Publication Influence Representation Using Temporal Knowledge Graph [52.07771598974385]
  Existing approaches mainly rely on mining temporal and graph data from academic articles. Our framework is composed of three modules: difference-preserved graph embedding, fine-grained influence representation, and learning-based trajectory calculation. Experiments are conducted on both the APS academic dataset and our contributed AIPatent dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-02T07:43:26Z)
• Artificial Intelligence in Concrete Materials: A Scientometric View [77.34726150561087]
  This chapter aims to uncover the main research interests and knowledge structure of the existing literature on AI for concrete materials. To begin with, a total of 389 journal articles published from 1990 to 2020 were retrieved from the Web of Science. Scientometric tools such as keyword co-occurrence analysis and documentation co-citation analysis were adopted to quantify features and characteristics of the research field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-17T18:24:56Z)
• Interdisciplinary research and technological impact: Evidence from biomedicine [2.741266294612776]
  We study one aspect of societal benefits that is contributing to the development of patented technologies. We measure the degree of interdisciplinarity of a paper using three popular indicators, namely variety, balance, and disparity. Our work may have policy implications for interdisciplinary research and scientific and technological impact.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-27T15:21:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.