Originality in scientific practice. Is it clear enough or should we continue discussing it?

Abstract

The guidelines for publishing articles, awarding grants, or obtaining a doctorate at an academic institution all stipulate originality. But how is it measured in practice? Research aimed at testing a creative solution (i.e., a novel idea) to an interesting, unsolved problem is undeniably original. But is the presence of a novel hypothesis a standard requirement or condition for evaluating the originality of a scientific proposal? It seems that such a condition would set the bar too high. While we value both plausible and original hypotheses in scientific proposals, the assessment of originality in day-to-day academic practice should hinge on whether the proposal addresses a research problem or question that remains unresolved. We highlight the balanced contributions of observation (e.g., natural history) and theory in inspiring and justifying scientific problems of significant interest. Identifying well-founded problems constitutes —or should constitute— the best way to evaluate originality in scientific practice.