Generally I agree with C.Lewis. But, sometime the author(s) don't realize that his/her results describe the new effect in science, so, he/she does not claim it. In the case they do realize, modesty deter them from such a claim. 

It requires two things: 1) attention to detail, 2) imagination.

Generally I agree with C.Lewis. But, sometime the author(s) don't realize that his/her results describe the new effect in science, so, he/she does not claim it. In the case they do realize, modesty deter them from such a claim. 

• Conferences help us a lot in trying to reach our papers to a larger audience.
• Experts need to recognize innovative works and give due recognition.
• Publications in high impact factor journals also help on this.

Scientists can develop the complex model easily, which perhaps can't be understood easily by society and stakeholders.

Converting imagination into reality and giving new direction to the existing concept into understandable manner, probably makes the science more effective and distinct.

Dear Alexander J. Babchin 

Look the link. May be useful.

https://books.google.az/books?id=FI7FBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA302&lpg=PA302&dq=Is+there+a+formal+way+to+distinct+a+New+Effect+in+Science+?&source=bl&ots=Qgx99jSflY&sig=fukrmVYXkMcIGbM9WlW-CjdHYXI&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=cfhjVciPKLCR7AbU6IHwDQ&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Is%20there%20a%20formal%20way%20to%20distinct%20a%20New%20Effect%20in%20Science%20%3F&f=false

Regards, Shafagat

In many articles new effect has been described, but in many case such description is hidden. One should look very carefúlly, and must be very familiar with the topic in order to recognise it.

As dear @Taras have mentioned, absolute dedication and knowledge of the topic is assumption for scientist to distinguish the New Effect! Lack of information about new effects in published research papers could confuse researchers about fact that some effect is a new one. Missing information create a problem in this domain.

Probably some rules can help for this task:

• if the description of the effect is not present at other ones
• if the field where the effect belongs is an almost totally new
• if the effect is a hidden aspect of another 'greater effect', but unobserved til now

But, let's suppose that a researcher is very good in public relations and is able to convince a university or an institution to accept his/her 'effect' as a new one. Do you beleieve that this will last for many years? So, actually, time is again the judge.

Dear Alexander,

I basically agree with what has been said, but I think important factor in having a scientific opportunities to publicize their work. I give as an example what happened with my own work. The only way I had on hand to spread my ideas, was RG, since the vast majority of reputable publications, rejected my proposal.

Dear Alexander, and responders,

First congratulation for the your plentiful activity and all very good building replies…  Really your question is connected to my own activity… First answer to: Luisiana Cundin, I would like to add another terms: intuition….  ability of the “total identification”

second:

In 2007 in time of discovering planet-erosion: http://planeterosion.blogspot.hu/

I know well that is a new discovery… It was gotten intuitional when I had thougt about how we could analyze the impacts of meteorites… The publishing of it was refused with ridiculous reasons by Hungarian Academy (That me I do not have enough astrological knowledge-… interesting that in majorities cases the astronomer gets conclusions from “indirect observations”, when a geoscientist uses direct observation for his conclusion… and this case the an process present onto our planet was  expanded to our inner solar system… Here all planets are stony planets, and their processes are same …)

Mrs. Lewis,  in lot of case you can do an excellent work if it is not accepted (From history we can mention Alfred Wegener (Wegener, A. (1966) [1929], The Origin of Continents and Oceans, Courier Dover Publications, ISBN 0-486-61708-4),… Galileo…

Galileo had had something ideas about the tides which was forgotten only from few years we are able to read it onto webpages of internet… http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/observations/tides.html (without reading his work... in 2009 I have published a work about gravity (Tényekkel igazolható a Gravítáció valós óka) for the explication the theory of planet erosion, here the gravity is connected to an real phenomena (outer core density variation) with it you can easy explain theory of Galileo about the tides and gives an excellent explication to the tsunamis caused by big earthquakes…http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2004/oct/14/earthquake-shakes-up-gravity (I also do not read it before publishing)… All observation behind presented are concordant with new discoveries (exoplanets)… they are not verified… but could have great significance for earth science (exploration-exploitation), earthquakes prediction… in interpretation of new data onto neighbor planets…etc…

And  for the do new idea not need only publishing place… they need equal opportunity in other type of media, too

I agree with Demetris. Nice question dear Alexander.

There is no formal method to declare a new effect other publishing in the open literature. There is no need to proclaim or declare that the effect is new. Anyone who understands will notice. There is a tendency in some fields to announce every observation, however tenuous, as a new, game-changing discovery by way of a press release.

An investigator who believes a finding is a new effect, should assiduously attempt to refute the finding and simultaneously exhaust the literature for similar and conflicting information. Once the effect is a certainty, a clear, supported description is necessary so there is no doubt of the effect and it is easily understood. Finally, the import of the effect must be discussed, along with any future directions of research and application.

A new effect will be greeted with suspicion. The gate keepers of the consensus will be out in force during peer review. It will take perseverance to be published. Then, again, one might be lucky and have the effect immediately recognized and accepted.

Dear Alexander J. Babchin, 

I find interesting article and sent you.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/

Regards, Shafagat

There is no informal way to distinct a New Effect in Science.

Dear Alexander,

Planet erosion:

http://planeterosion.blogspot.hu/.

Best,

Laszlo