Thank you for this important, interesting, but also for a large group of scientists uncomfortable question.

I agree that - as wrote Ljubomir - research is a challenge, and not always possible to predict in advance of the final outcomes of our work. This is normal in science, and each of us has to reckon with the fact that taking challenging tasks, can achieve half the success, and sometimes fail. For the scientists from "flesh and blood" the possible failure is factored in their actions.

However, more often - unfortunately - I following attitudes of people in science, which are generally described by me as the selection of paths "scientist - impersonator". It is easy to imagine that with such a choice of the risk of failure actually does not exist, and effort in the implementation of the research work is disproportionately small compared with the involvement of scientists pursuing ambitious challenges.

About this problem, quite painful for people which have the development of science at heart, I already wrote in another topic, referring to the so-called "making scientific careers", which unfortunately also creates such attitudes, as described above by me "scientist - impersonator".

@Sahifa, research is a challenge! Many results will appear, soon or later. Researcher must believe himself in order to achieve his scientific goals! Cooperation and a teamwork are important so much!

Thank you for this important, interesting, but also for a large group of scientists uncomfortable question.

I agree that - as wrote Ljubomir - research is a challenge, and not always possible to predict in advance of the final outcomes of our work. This is normal in science, and each of us has to reckon with the fact that taking challenging tasks, can achieve half the success, and sometimes fail. For the scientists from "flesh and blood" the possible failure is factored in their actions.

However, more often - unfortunately - I following attitudes of people in science, which are generally described by me as the selection of paths "scientist - impersonator". It is easy to imagine that with such a choice of the risk of failure actually does not exist, and effort in the implementation of the research work is disproportionately small compared with the involvement of scientists pursuing ambitious challenges.

About this problem, quite painful for people which have the development of science at heart, I already wrote in another topic, referring to the so-called "making scientific careers", which unfortunately also creates such attitudes, as described above by me "scientist - impersonator".

Science very much as life is a long track career. An earlier triumph does not always guarantee a later definite success. The production of new knowledge is a matter of gradients - not so much of nature. I believe some - many of us are indeed producing new knowledge. Not to mention scientometry.

Socially we get rewards about a job that does not seek to be applauded.

This is a good question, Sahifa. In any field of research there are many questions that need to be asked, or at least reframed in the light of current thinking. If a researcher is not producing new knowledge, then perhaps that person is not asking the right questions. Life is too short to spin one's wheels! That said, I might add that the current "publish or perish," "impact factor" environment is not particularly conducive to expanding the frontiers of knowledge, but it is important to keep insisting on this vital point.

Looking back after retirement, I have disclosed new knowledge in Hispanic Literature and Comparative Literature by performing source-study in archives that have never been explored before in this fashion. I tried to compare authors with their influences to determine with clarity their own ideas at different stages of their careers. Those archives are: the personal library of Ortega y Gasset (Madrid), the personal archives of Unamuno (Salamanca), the home library of Laín Entralgo (Madrid), the Foundation of Garcia Lorca (Madrid), and the Archive of Manuel de Falla (Granada). Discoveries in those archives have filled 14 of my 17 books. The first book came out in 1979 and the most recent on February 9, 2014. Is my archival research finished? Not by a long shot! So much to explore, so little time!

History of science shows that final recognition has come - later on. Newton is a notable exception (almost a semi-god on his life time).

Our own sincere and enlightened consciousness is a good source to answer the question. Provided that we are lucid enough!

Also Einstein, very recognized in his own lifetime.

@Sahifa Yes, I am.

I think that all research has the potential to contribute to the development of new knowledge, but that this potential is not always met, for a range of reasons. It may be that the researcher is still developing the skills and expertise needed to reach this level, and that what they have been able to contribute is simply a stepping stone on the way to a new theory; it may also be that external limitations interrupt the research process or limit the scope of a project, for example access to funding, resources or other support. It is certainly a goal for researchers, and one that is an aspiration for students at a range of levels, that desire to 'make a difference'.

If you manage to get published in a good journal, this usually means that you have done something of value: e.g. contributed towards filling a research gap. However, every scientist can never create his/her theory in strict sense: a recognized theory should also have many followers and also, many people should check if it has enough value to become a theory.

Dear friends, for my MS and PhD, I did basic research on music preferences. My work was able to support LeBlanc's model of music preference. And, from that work, I was able to use students' music preferences to achieve the Aims of music education in Malaysian Secondary schools.

But now I teach biology. I do applied research on how to improve and enhance the learning of my students.

Sent from mobile.

Dear Miranda,

How wonderful that you were able to recycle your musical knowledge! I am reading your articles to enhance my own knowledge of music appreciation for research undertaken late in my career, the reverse of yours.

Ok. Just for the sake of accuracy: Einstein was denied the Nobel prize several times before he received in 1922. And still he did not received for his pioneer work on the theory of relativity. Moreover, several times afterward Einstein was refused the possibility of getting two Nobel prizes for the reluctance that his theory produced in many members of the Nobel prize committee. - His years, later on, in Princeton were of some loneliness and distance (except perhaps for his outstanding conversations with Gödel). In any case, there are sharp difference with the social status of Newton.

Focusing on the point, however, producing new knowledge is there result of commitment with oneself, passion, love and self-discipline - some aspects that are easier said than done.

Dear friends (Ljubomir, Andrzej et al.and Nelson), thanks.

Here, I give you the link to that paper :)

Article Music preferences of Malaysian students and KBSM curriculum ...

Thanks for the clarification, Carlos.

I think that if you are indeed a researcher, we are always producing some type of new knowledge. May it be by presenting something really new, confirm a proposed model/theory, add some bit of knowledge to the understanding of a particular process. Even negative results add knowledge, even if it is only that path is not worth pursuing.

Of course, there are those who produce knowledge with more impact, even creating theories/models. Nevertheless, as @Tiia Vissak said, not every researchers will produce new models/theories. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Obtaining knowledge is a cumulative process, so every scientist adding some bit of information is producing much needed knowledge.

I believe every one has a good point to convince. But the term "New" itself is closely related to time. Some theory/model which is new right now may be old in the near future.

Of course, many are generating new knowledge if not all, I agree to @Sahifa. But one thing very important is, the New knowledge should not be a desk study alone i.e. it should match with ground realities and for the benefit of masses.