An original research paper is the one based on original research that produces new knowledge instead of summarizing what is already known in a new form. There are many ways to produce new knowledge: observations, experiments, new approaches to solving existing problems, etc. Very often, an original research paper is simply called a dissertation.

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.

An original research paper is the one based on original research that produces new knowledge instead of summarizing what is already known in a new form. There are many ways to produce new knowledge: observations, experiments, new approaches to solving existing problems, etc. Very often, an original research paper is simply called a dissertation.

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.

Originality in research mean what you are doing is from your own perspective although you may draw arguments from other research work to back up your arguments. 

-Not copying the writing styles of others

-Not using the language of other without acknowledgement

-Contributing new knowledge at the end of your writing

-Being unique as much as possible

Hi,

Originality is could be considered the opposite of plagiarism, or simply lack of originality. Original results could be based on previous research, provided that they presenting a new angle to the findings, and new perspectives. Even a review paper that usually summarizes all the papers that are published on a subject, could be considered original if it  presents new findings. The mass of information published today hardly allows for results that are "something out of nothing".

The originality of a research including the results as well as the writing of the article. The best original research in which the findings are reported for the first time in the literature.

What does originality in research mean? A student's perspective.

Edwards M1.

Abstract

AIM:

To provide a student's perspective of what it means to be original when undertaking a PhD.

BACKGROUND:

A review of the literature related to the concept of originality in doctoral research highlights the subjective nature of the concept in academia. Although there is much literature that explores the issues concerning examiners' views of originality, there is little on students' perspectives.

REVIEW METHODS:

A snowballing technique was used, where a recent article was read, and the references cited were then explored. Given the time constraints, the author recognises that the literature review was not as extensive as a systematic literature review.

DISCUSSION:

It is important for students to be clear about what is required to achieve a PhD. However, the vagaries associated with the formal assessment of the doctoral thesis and subsequent performance at viva can cause considerable uncertainty and anxiety for students.

CONCLUSION:

Originality in the PhD is a subjective concept and is not the only consideration for examiners. Of comparable importance is the assessment of the student's ability to demonstrate independence of thought and increasing maturity so they can become independent researchers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH/PRACTICE:

This article expresses a different perspective on what is meant when undertaking a PhD in terms of originality in the doctoral thesis. It is intended to help guide and reassure current and potential PhD students.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25059081

"Original" can have two meanings:

1. It can mean that you are actually doing the research yourself, and your dat is first-hand.  

2. It can mean research that is unique, and nobody else has done similar research.  To determine this, search the academic literature with keywords that are relevant to YOUR research and see how similar other studies have been.  If you are researching something that has already been reported in the literature, then you are not very original.

The goal for new research should generally be to address something that is lacking in the existing literature.  Often this means addressing an unanswered question.  

How to recognise and develop originality in research

 For research to be of PhD standard, all institutional regulations require it be 'original' and significant. In practice, though, research projects at all levels should be original; just the duration shorter and the significance less - much less for undergraduate projects. (Advice on limiting the scope and significance of a project at the outset is on the page about choosing a research topic; advice on limiting scope towards the end when seemingly submerged in too much data is on the page about a fall-back position.)

Students often worry about how to recognise and claim originality in their work. This page should help, but remember that originality without some sort of significance is worthless.

Ways of thinking about originality

A useful way to appreciate the scope of originality is through an analogy, where the research programme can be likened to an exploration into a wilderness at a time in history when the world was still largely unexplored and when explorers still had considerable personal autonomy. In the analogy, the explorer may have certain visions in mind concerning what he or she hopes the expedition will achieve, but appreciates that these may not materialise, so is open to alternatives. To avoid cumbersome repetition, the explorer and student will be taken as having different sexes, arbitrarily male and female respectively.

Originality in tools, techniques and procedures

In the analogy the explorer uses all the information he can to firm up on why he wants to explore the wilderness and how he might do so within the resources at his command and within any constraints that may exist. He uses this information to plan and organise what background knowledge, procedures, tools, equipment and personnel he will need, tailored to the available resources and constraints. Some procedures may have to be specially designed, some tools and equipment may have to be specially made and some personnel may have to be specially trained or brought in.

Similarly, the student studies the literature, talks to experts and attends relevant training to get background knowledge and to develop an appropriate research methodology. This must include decisions about the procedures, tools and techniques, and possibly also the people to be involved. These may be fairly standard in the field of study, but if she uses them in new and untested ways, this would justify a claim for originality. Or if she develops new procedures, tools and techniques for a specific purpose, this, too would justify a claim for originality. If neither is the case, her claim for originality must lie in later stages of the work, as suggested in the next few sections.

Originality in exploring the unknown/unexplored

In the analogy the expedition begins along the pre-planned route. If this is previously unexplored, the mere exploration is original work.

Similarly, if the student is conducting a major investigation on something which has never been investigated before, such as a recently discovered insect, star, poem, etc, the work will necessarily be original.

Such originality is built into the research topic and is straightforward to justify.

In many fields of study, however, originality is not built-in. So read on.

Originality in exploring the unanticipated

In the analogy the main route may already have been broadly explored. However, the explorer will, from time to time, come across unexpected and unexplored sidetracks. He may not notice them and he may continue on the planned route anyway, in which case nothing original is involved. If, however, he does notice the sidetracks, he has to make decisions about whether to explore any of them, and if so, which ones. These decisions may be difficult, because he cannot know whether anything of interest will turn out to lie along them without at least partially exploring them, and doing so will use resources of time and equipment which will delay the expedition on its main route. Yet, one or more of the sidetracks could contain something of such great interest and significance that it would be worth abandoning the expedition as first planned and putting all the resources into exploring the sidetrack.

Similarly, in fairly mundane research, one phase of the work can open up alternative ways forward which have never previously been researched. These ways forward are necessarily original, and they can also turn out to be highly significant. They can, on the other hand, equally turn out to be dead-ends which consume time and effort fruitlessly. Researchers cannot know without devoting some time to looking, and even if nothing worthwhile results, a student can at least claim to have searched for something original and significant.

Originality in data

In the analogy the explorer may make interesting notes of observations along the way. Where he is unable to give them the time they deserve while on the expedition, he may pack them up for carrying back home to work through properly.

Similarly, the student may find herself collecting data, a great deal which she does not process at the time. She just hopes that it may provide something original and useful later when processed or analysed. This is a perfectly possible way of incorporating originality into work, but it is not at all safe because the data may turn out to have minimal significance. To follow such a route successfully, students need either good hunches about how the data might be used to advantage or considerable creative abilities.

Originality in transfer of mode or place of use.

The explorer may collect all manner of goodies along the way, ranging from what he hoped for when planning the expedition to the entirely unanticipated. These goodies may have an obvious uniqueness, beauty or value, like gold or precious stones. More likely, though, they are commonplace where they were found, but unknown back home, like the potato which Sir Walter Raleigh brought to England from America.

Similarly, originality in research need not be new in absolute terms. It can merely be new to the research situation or the discipline. Even well-known and already published data can lead to 'originality' if tested in new situations. It is both feasible and acceptable for researchers to make something original and significant with secondary data, i.e. data that they did not gather themselves. This route to originality is often overlooked by research students.

Originality in by-products

Things may go so badly wrong on the expedition that it has to be abandoned with seemingly nothing achieved. Yet, the illnesses of the team could be used to testify to the diseases that are rampant in the area. Or the torrential storms that washed away the collections of specimens could be monitored for interpretation in terms of what is already known about storms in that type of terrain. Neither of these would have been the purpose of the expedition, but they would be none the less valuable and count as original and significant outcomes.

Similarly, the student may be able to capitalise on things that seem to go wrong. Important equipment may not work; crucial resources may not be available; people may not agree to be interviewed; funding may be withdrawn; or there may be other serious and unforeseen obstacles. Just as in the analogy, a little creative thinking can rescue the situation, which is the primary reason for the third role in which students need to operate. There are almost always by-products during any research, perhaps the development of a certain piece of equipment or some interesting secondary findings in the literature. These can be moved into the mainstream, focused on or developed further. When the thesis or dissertation is written, the research problem, theme or focus merely needs to be reformulated to reflect the new nature of the work. There is nothing at all dishonest about this.

Originality in the experience

Whatever happens on the expedition, the explorer should, provided that he did not give up and return home early, have some interesting stories to tell.

Similarly students who stay the course with their research should be able to tease out something worthwhile from an academic or scholarly standpoint. Creative thinking techniques should help.

Originality as 'potentially publishable'

Departing from the analogy, another useful way to stimulate thinking about originality is through the concept of 'potentially publishable' in a peer-reviewed journal. This is increasingly being equated to 'significant originality' for students' research. The work does not necessarily have to be published, only to be worthy of publication, in principle, if suitably written up at a later stage. 'Potentially publishable' is a useful notion, because most research, particularly at PhD level, ought to be able to generate at least one, and probably several, journal articles. If, by the time of the examination, the work has already been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, that is a considerable plus.

The variety of interpretations and configurations of originality

It is not very difficult to develop new and original twists to research, and Box 21.1 in the book gives some examples of how real students have done so. You should be able to do it too.

http://www.postgradresources.info/student-resources08-originality.htm

Dear Timothy and other friends.

In my opinion, originality in a research DOES NOT mean "doing research by yourself". The originality in an academic research must have at least two meanings:

(1) originality of the research idea. In here, a researcher has to prove that there is no similar study has been conducted elsewhere on the same topic using the same framework for the analysis. The researcher needs to prove this in his/her literature review by showing what previous studies have done and what they have not done or by analyzing the gap in the previous studies. So, the gap is showing the originality. In proving this, a researcher is not requested to do a massive literature review to include all publications from different context and languages, but to show adequate and proper literature reviews especially to include publications that published in last five years.

and

(2) originality of research writing. It means that the research writing must not duplicate a certain amount of similarities of other research reports. Different institutions or publishers will have different similarity rate permissible to be in a paper such as 20%, 25% and so forth. Most of the publisher will check this through various software or application such as "Turnitin" that able to check plagiarism using online platform.

I think that the colleagues before me have already provided a wide -range set of answers to the question about originality. Unfortunately this question would be answered differently lets say 20 or 30 years ago. 

While the theoretical concepts of "what is original" are still valid, very little research is original in our days. Most of the research topics are already saturated with previous work.. and very rarely the research results are UNIQUE in comparison to the data in the literature. 

So I believe that in our present scientific context, that we should substitute the term "Original Research" with "Good Research", that is conducted via established scientific rules. 

Hi

I hope that following file will help you.

Regards

Article Originality in doctoral research

You may have to practice the art of standing on the shoulders of the tallest authorities in the area where you intend to contribute.

Hi,

Being original means that you are contributing a new angle to existing research', or that you are drawing  new conclusions from a series of  published research data. Because of the information overload in our time, you do not have to "invent the wheel" to be original.

In carrying out scientific research, how will I know if I am being original or not? What is the test for originality?

In order to embark on original research, you are not re-inventing the wheel, but rather researching something new or adopting new research method etc. for knowledge contribution.  Originality verification might include rigorous literature review, attending research conferences & colloquiums, research community networking & brainstorming, research social websites like RG, Academia, Mendeley etc.

I see two opposing concepts in scientific careers: 1) the genuine researcher, who wants to really change the world with totally new ideas and concepts, that new, that he/she is decades ahead of others - unfortunately, they have a hard time to get their ideas accepted and the support; 2) the science manager, without any creativity to own ideas, usually just jumping from one popular field into the next, never really contributing anything really new - they can become the head of a research center, publishing hundreds of useless papers, citing themselves and getting cited by their coauthors tens of thousands of times - with our ever contributing anything scientifically really important.

Acknowledgement: RH Eibl

Hello, I can't add more to what Dr. Jorge Morales Pedraza answered. a complete and wide answer.

To have an innovative idea and bring it to reality.

Hi, I think it is the aspect of created or invented works as being new or novel . 

Regards, Azzam 

May look at this article for more clarity: Article Originality and the PhD: What is it and how can it be demonstrated?

In one word ....

originality = new knowledge that has not previously presented

Hi,

Being original means that your findings are contributing something new to a body of knowledge, and this can be established by the evaluation of experts in the field. However, there are cases in which the originality of the findings is not identified immediately, and sometimes it takes years before it is recognized.

Consider very thoroughly and deeply, the orthodox explanations and conclusions in, or close to, your field of expertise, and look for other possible explanations, hypotheses, or theories. If you find something new or different, investigate it very thoroughly and you may be able to propose something new or different. Then you will be original, but even if you are right it may take years to be recognised, but the wait could be worth it.

In addition to the previously mentioned valuable explanations, the following infograph can help in understanding various types of plagiarism.

https://hub.wiley.com/community/exchanges/discover/blog/2016/02/02/10-types-of-plagiarism-in-research

Lots of ways to be original….

1.Setting down a major piece of new information in writing for the first time; 2.Continuing a previously original piece of work

3.Carrying out original work designed by the supervisor

4.Providing a single original technique, observation, or result in an otherwise unoriginal but competent piece of research;

5.Having many original ideas, methods and interpretations all performed by others under the direction of the postgraduate

6.Showing originality in testing somebody else’s idea

Francis, J. R. D. (1976) Supervision and examination of higher degree students, Bulletin of the University of London, 31: 3–6

Originality can be achieved through a critical review of literature and articulating the next logical stage in the growing understanding of the topic.

A stabilizing condition (distance between ideal and current situation) gives your work originality once identified.

Finding existing knowledge gap can assist to the concept of originality

Useful article