I'm a high school student who's been working at a university lab as an intern, and this has been on my mind for a while.
The amount of scientific literature/papers in any field is obviously staggering. To me, it seems like there's no possible way to have read all of it. So, assuming I were a full-blown researcher/professor...
- How would I be sure that my research actually does add something novel to the field?
- What if there are papers that already address/refute my claim, that simply got buried amongst the masses of other papers that have already been published -- does that mean my own research is worth squat?
Thank you for all your help!
It is believed that the work which one is supposed to do would surely add something new to the knowledge of the world, which is called 'Science'.
It is actually very difficult to get all the details of the works which have already been done so far which might include which could refute the claims that you are proposing in your new work.
Moreover, it is also difficult to know whether a work is novel or not. This actually improves with experience and review experiences. If you think that the already published papers refute the claims (in some way), let us leave it to the reviewers. Even if they are refuting the claims or theories or hypothesis, it is actually interesting piece of work which actually gives a counter argument that the previous works were someway different in some context.