Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research.

This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).

An article is considered original research if...

•  it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
•  the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• the researchers detail their research methods.
• the results of the research are reported.
• the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications

 Sources:

What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source.". Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida. Archived from the original on 2011-07-09. Retrieved 9 Aug 2014.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110709085129/http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/originalresearch.html

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. 

The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example: the statement "the capital of France is Paris" needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."

please, see the following links for further information about the thread:

http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page342048

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Ahlan Nisreen,

What are the points which make a research an original one?

It is just one point; when you genuinely feel that you have made every possible effort to work out a research that contributes, in a way or another, to the research community in the studied field.

Is it always true that original research must look for information that nobody else has found?

   I guess that in every case that holds true, otherwise if such information is available in existing resources then what is the benefit of researching it? However, one exclusion that comes to my mind could be the "survey/literature review" research. One gathers as much as he/she can of existing state-of-the-art articles and summarises them. However, a mild touch of "originality" is required in the sense of the presentation of the review (e.g., clustering the different methods into groups based on certain criteria, analysing the pros-and-cons of such methods, recommendations, notes of critics, etc).

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

"Writing nonfiction is more like sculpture, a matter of shaping the research into the finished thing. Novels are like paintings, specifically watercolors. Every stroke you put down you have to go with. Of course you can rewrite, but the original strokes are still there in the texture of the thing".

                                                                       -------   Joan Didion

Thank you for valuable contributions,

I have read that it is not only looking for information that nobody else has found which make a research an original one, but it also includes points like:

• clarifying an ambiguity .
• collecting raw data and analyzing it followed by conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

What do you think?

• clarifying an ambiguity

No doubt, that is still a contribution to science.

• collecting raw data and analyzing it followed by conclusions drawn from the results of that analysis.

Yes, given the use of new raw data or the use of old data but approached differently. In the medical field, which I presume you are referring to,  experiments using existing algorithms on new raw medical data is called validation and guarantees to a certain extent the originality factor under discussion.

Mr. Abbas,

You are right, I am referring to Medical Image Processing. Can we say that originality is a relative conception?

“If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?”

-- Albert Einstein

Originality can be defined as making a small, significant contribution to knowledge

Making a 'significant contribution' means 'adding to knowledge' or 'contributing to the discourse' - that is, providing evidence to substantiate a conclusion that's worth making.

What sorts of contribution are typically made?

• Re-contextualization of an existing technique, theory or model (applying a technique in a new context, testing a theory in a new setting, showing the applicability of a model to a new situation): showing it works - or that it doesn't - and why
• Corroboration and elaboration of an existing model (e.g. evaluating the effects of a change of condition; experimental assessment of one aspect of a model)
• Falsification or contradiction of an existing model, or part of one
• Drawing together two or more existing ideas and showing that the combination reveals something new and useful
• Demonstration of a concept: showing that something is feasible and has utility (or showing that something is infeasible and explaining why it fails)
• Implementation of theoretical principle: showing how it can be applied in practice; making concrete someone else's idea, and hence showing how it works in practice and what its limitations are
• Codification of the 'obvious': providing evidence about what 'everyone knows' (possibly providing evidence that received wisdom is incorrect)
• Empirically-based characterization of a phenomenon of interest (e.g. detailed, critical, analytic account of the evolution of an idea; detailed analytic characterization of a crucial case study or a novel chemical compound, or a new planet)
• Providing a taxonomy of observed phenomena
• Well-founded critique of existing theory or evidence (e.g. correlating the results of a number of existing studies to show patterns, omissions or etc.)

http://www.findaphd.com/advice/finding/criteria-for-phd.aspx

Mr. Behrouz,

Thank you very much for your answer

Dear @Nisreen, you have got good responses from my colleagues. What is Original Research?

Original research is considered a primary source.

"An article is considered original research if...

• it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
• the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• the researchers detail their research methods.
• the results of the research are reported.
• the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications..."

http://libguides.unf.edu/originalresearch

"Original research is defined as involving independent data collection based on any combination of fieldwork, participant observation, interviews, surveys, and/or formal data collection and analysis. "

An article is considered to be original research when:

• The hypothesis and the purpose is described.
• Research methods are described fully
• The results of the research are reported.
• The researcher interprets the results and discuss possible implications.

http://hayajneh.org/glossary/vocabulary/o/OriginalResearch.html

Original research is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research.

This material is of a primary source character. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).

An article is considered original research if...

•  it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study.
•  the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study.
• the researchers detail their research methods.
• the results of the research are reported.
• the researchers interpret their results and discuss possible implications

 Sources:

What is Original Research? Original research is considered a primary source.". Thomas G. Carpenter Library, University of North Florida. Archived from the original on 2011-07-09. Retrieved 9 Aug 2014.

http://web.archive.org/web/20110709085129/http://www.unf.edu/library/guides/originalresearch.html

Thank you all for your valuable contributions,

Nisreen

Its "Research", searching or trying to solving something which exists but in a new way. One can say "research should be unique" rather than original....(in my view)

1. Its your methodology

2. Its your way of approaching

3. Its your unique way of looking at problem and analysing it.

4. Its unique solution method(s).

5. Uniqueness in terms of accuracy in results obtained.

If this search is done for the first time then it may become "Discovery".

These are my views, correct me if my understanding are not correct.