Exploring Originality in Postgraduate Education in Context: A Decade of Academic Excellence

Exploring Originality in Postgraduate Education in Context: A Decade of Academic Excellence | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Systematic Review Exploring Originality in Postgraduate Education in Context: A Decade of Academic Excellence Patrick Ngulube This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Originality in postgraduate education is essential because it serves as a foundation for excellence and innovation. Completing a thesis is a requirement for graduating from any academic institution. For a thesis to be accepted, it must make a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge. However, many PhD candidates encounter challenges in writing sound theses that demonstrate academic integrity and a high level of originality. Originality can involve generating new insights, theories, or connections between previously unrelated sources. Using qualitative content analysis of 84 PhD theses in Information Studies at an academic institution in Africa, this study explored how originality is defined and articulated in that context. The findings show that the theses reviewed demonstrate a high degree of originality, highlighting their cognitive excellence. It is recommended that PhD-level research should demonstrate a high degree of originality, achieving more than fifty per cent in all attributes that reflect originality as outlined by various scholars and the conceptual framework that guided this study. Although the findings from this study cannot be generalised to all PhD studies and disciplines, it forms a sound theoretical basis for understanding the subject of originality in postgraduate education. The discussion and checklist for originality will benefit postgraduates, supervisors, and examiners of research theses. Innovation excellence creativity novelty significant contribution uniqueness in research originality in research genuineness of research scientific value Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 1. Introduction and background Originality is a cornerstone of academic excellence in postgraduate education and is a key element of doctoral research across all disciplines, forming the foundation of all universities' requirements for postgraduate research and writing [ 1 , 2 ]. Originality in research is crucial for several reasons, with the most important being the generation of new knowledge [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Writing a thesis is a requirement for graduating from any academic institution. The granting of a doctorate requires demonstrating an original contribution to advancing the boundaries of knowledge [ 1 , 6 ]. A PhD thesis must significantly contribute to the existing knowledge in the study's subject area by offering something new and valuable [ 7 , 8 ]. However, many PhD candidates face challenges in producing theses that demonstrate a high level of originality [ 9 ]. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is “no precise definition of scientific originality” [ 10 , p. 765], and many universities, especially those in Europe, “are almost silent on how originality is to be determined” [ 11 , p. 27]. That implies that the way that originality of research can be assessed is greatly contested [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 12 , 13 , 14 ], partly because it is based on “problematically vague and subjective quality standards” [ 15 , p. 336]. The concept of "publishability" is a key indicator of originality in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [ 16 ]. In contrast, in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, originality is often linked to "intellectual originality," which is defined more broadly [ 16 , 17 ]. Although originality can vary from discipline to discipline, it refers to making a unique contribution to knowledge, which is vital for advancing a field of study [ 3 , 15 , 18 , 19 ]. Originality has been defined in various ways, including the use of new approaches, theories, methods, or data; the exploration of new topics; research conducted in areas that are not well studied; or the production of new findings [3, 6, 15, 17; 20, 21]. Some scholars identified fifteen key areas that can constitute originality in a PhD, which can serve as a guide for candidates to understand the different dimensions of originality [ 22 , 23 ]. Alajami [ 24 ] proposes a synthesis model of originality and explores the relationships among the concepts of uniqueness, novelty, and originality, arguing that the ecosystem significantly influences the originality aspect. Original thoughts are not only rare but also carry the qualities of creativity and inventiveness [ 24 ]. Unique ideas can range from the ordinary to the extraordinary. As a result, the most innovative concepts are those that are both rare and exhibit creativity, inventiveness, or an element of surprise [ 25 ]. Originality in postgraduate theses comes from fresh perspectives and interpretations of existing literature [ 26 ]. This highlights how scholarly work is interconnected and requires critical reading of materials, proper acknowledgement, the creation of a distinct authorial voice, and a clear differentiation between plagiarism and intertextuality [ 27 ]. In scholarly writing, interpretation should take precedence over simple replication [ 26 ]. Following its characterisation by some scholars, originality in postgraduate theses stems from unique approaches, topics, hypotheses, methods, data, findings, or theories [ 3 , 6 , 15 ]. It emphasises the importance of situating research within existing literature to clearly demonstrate meaningful contributions to knowledge [ 3 , 6 , 15 , 20 , 25 ]. In other words, originality is often linked to creativity, which emphasises the production of knowledge that is not only novel but also meaningful [ 12 , 25 ]. The differences among disciplines, the relationship between existing knowledge and new ideas, and doctoral training conditions influence perceptions and expectations regarding originality [ 12 ]. Originality in postgraduate theses within Information Studies can arise from various factors, such as creativity, innovation, novelty, relevance, uniqueness and the utilisation of original data. Creative and innovative practices can arise from applying existing theories to new data [ 5 , 12 , 28 ]. They also involve developing novel methods for analysis, introducing new solutions to old problems, reinterpreting established theories, and updating prior perspectives [ 12 , 25 ]. These elements collectively shape the expectations for doctoral contributions to knowledge. The purpose of the study is to explore originality in Information Studies theses from 2015–2025 to make recommendations on how academic excellence can be achieved. The focus was on PhD theses rather than master’s dissertations. Even if a master's dissertation may make an original contribution to a field, novelty is crucial for obtaining a PhD [ 29 ]. Furthermore, PhD studies require in-depth analysis, original research methodologies, and thorough literature reviews, focusing on developing new theories or data [ 30 ]. Although there is no official list of topics that define the field of information studies, this study relied on the compilations of some scholars to identify the key themes in the theses being reviewed (See Appendix I) [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. These lists are based on the premise that information studies involve the creation, organisation, management, communication, and use of recorded information. This field encompasses professional activities such as librarianship and archiving, while also focusing on educating professionals and conducting research to improve practices within the discipline. A longitudinal study design was used to analyse theses over a ten-year period (2015–2025). The year 2015 was chosen as the starting point for this study due to a noticeable gap in the deposit of theses from 2010 to 2015. There was a consistent deposit of these research outputs in the institutional repository from 2015 onwards. The study covers a timeframe that exceeds the recommended five years for assessing scholarly communication [ 33 ]. 2. Conceptual framework Several theories can be used to analyse originality in research, including romantic originality [ 34 ], the sociocultural theory of creativity [ 35 ], the componential theory of creativity [ 36 ], and the systems model of creativity [ 37 ]. No single theory offers a complete perspective. Based on the work of [ 38 ] and [ 39 ], a conceptual framework was developed from components of the componential theory, relevant literature, and the study’s context as illustrated in Fig. 1 . The componential theory of creativity explores how new and useful ideas are generated and implemented, highlighting the role of originality [ 36 , 40 ]. This theory is ideal for content analysis, as it emphasises originality as a key factor distinguishing creative works from mere reproductions. This theory can be used to investigate the link between creativity and originality in academic research. Creative thinking and innovation are essential for producing new knowledge, highlighting both the novelty of ideas and the significance of research outcomes [ 12 ]. The focus of the study was on how the reviewed theses generated and implemented novel ideas or solutions to existing problems in Information Studies to achieve excellence. The conceptual framework in Fig. 1 seeks to examine the evolution of themes, methodologies, and contributions in Information Studies theses from 2015 to 2025. It emphasises originality through the lens of innovation and creativity theory. As illustrated in Fig. 1 and backed by existing literature, originality can be attained through various approaches [ 3 , 6 , 15 , 17 , 20 , 21 ]. The framework illustrates the progression of research, beginning with a novel research question and advancing through methodological and theoretical development to contributions that highlight originality. Each interconnected variable suggests that changes in one can affect others. It operates on the principle that originality is achieved through innovative thinking and creative methodologies. This framework supports the examination of how theses in Information Studies evolve in originality by showing the interrelation of themes, methodologies, and contributions from 2015 to 2025. A novel research question is essential for originality in academic work and influences the choice of methodology and theoretical framework. Innovative methodologies often emerge from the research question, producing new empirical data that enriches both the literature review and the conclusions drawn. Innovative methodologies can produce insights that support the thesis's originality and potentially impact policy or practice. Original research questions can drive the development of new theories or adaptations of existing ones. By building upon or modifying existing theoretical frameworks and using new frameworks, researchers can generate valuable empirical data that informs policy or practice. Insights typically emerge from the combination of innovative methodologies, novel research questions, and the refinement of existing theories. A comprehensive literature review supports the formation of these original questions and validates the thesis's contributions. Ultimately, the synthesis of these elements leads to original conclusions and implications, reinforcing the thesis's overall significance. 3. Statement of the problem Originality is a key characteristic of doctoral research. However, there is significant confusion about what qualifies as originality in a PhD and how to clearly demonstrate contributions to knowledge [ 3 ]. There is also a lack of institutional guidance regarding what defines originality in a PhD study [ 41 ]. Several authors stress the necessity for further research to clarify the criteria and evaluation of originality [ 12 , 41 , 42 ]. Many doctoral candidates outline their perceived originality without critically showcasing how their research significantly contributes to the body of knowledge. Key elements that contribute to originality include the presentation of new knowledge, innovative methodologies, and distinctive viewpoints that advance the field. However, relatively little is known about the originality of Information Studies theses in context. The aim of this study is to examine the themes, methodologies, and contributions of information studies theses evolved to demonstrate originality from 2015 to 2025 using aspects of the innovation and creativity theory. The following specific research questions underpinned the study: What is the prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses in Information Studies from 2015 to 2025 How does the extent of originality vary across different subfields of Information Studies? Which are the common sources of originality identified in the theses in Information Studies from 2015 to 2025? 4. Methodology This study employs a qualitative content analysis approach to examine the originality in postgraduate theses. Qualitative content analysis involves a systematic examination of qualitative data to identify patterns and meanings [ 43 ]. The research method was used successfully to investigate postgraduate theses in education in Austria and Turkey [ 44 ]. A content analysis was conducted on postgraduate projects in Information Science in Brazil from 2018 to 2021 to determine the teaching of epistemology in postgraduate studies [ 45 ]. The same research method was used to analyse over 10 theses from an academic institution in Asia, focusing on factors that reduce the originality of students' theses [ 9 ]. The cited studies demonstrate the effectiveness of qualitative content analysis in researching patterns of scholarly communication in theses, within certain limits. The process began with data preparation, which included identifying and compiling the theses for analysis from the institutional repository [ 46 ]. The theses selected for this study were from postgraduate programmes in Information Studies. The theses were read to gain a general understanding of their content. Only those that were written in English and indicated the level of study and the date of publication on the title page were selected. A total of 84 theses were identified, read and selected within the study period. The data was first captured in Microsoft Excel® before being exported to ATLAS.ti Version 23®. A data coding framework was created to categorise different aspects of originality, such as novel research questions, innovative methodologies, and unique theoretical contributions [ 47 ]. The codes were developed deductively from the research questions and conceptual framework (See Fig. 1 ) that guided the study. To ensure the framework's accuracy, two postgraduate fellows independently coded the data after receiving training [ 48 ]. Discrepancies in coding were addressed through discussion, and a consensus was reached. All the categories and codes in the framework were clearly defined to ensure that all coders interpreted the data consistently. The final coding schema was confirmed, as detailed in Appendix II, after calculating intra-rater reliability using Cohen's Kappa statistical measure [ 49 ]. The agreement level was high at 0.80, nearing perfect agreement, which is 1, given that Cohen's Kappa values range from − 1 to 1. The coding framework was pretested on a small sample of data [ 50 ]. Thus, definitions of some codes that were unclear or too broad were revised, which made them more specific and precise. A detailed codebook that documented all codes, definitions, and examples was maintained to maintain consistency. Discussions to build consensus on difficult or ambiguous cases were used in a collaborative manner to enhance the reliability of the analysis. All coding decisions and changes to the framework were documented. ATLAS.ti Version 23®, a qualitative data analysis software tool, was used to manage and analyse the data, ensuring consistency and accuracy in coding [ 51 ]. The analytical approach included descriptive, comparative, and thematic methods. The descriptive analysis provided a summary of the frequency and distribution of originality indicators within the sample. All decimal points have been rounded to the nearest whole number. The comparative analysis examined the levels of originality across different years to identify trends and patterns. Lastly, the thematic analysis focused on identifying and analysing recurring themes related to originality in the theses. In line with ethical considerations, the identities of the authors were anonymised in the reporting of results. Informed consent from the institution and authors was not required, as the data are publicly available. Grammarly® was used to paraphrase and polish the sentences, and SciSpace® for Chrome was employed in the review of the literature. Although this study did not involve human participants, it was conducted in accordance with the ethics policy of the parent institution. 5. Findings The findings align with the research questions and conceptual framework. 5.1. Prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses The study aimed to map the prevalence rates of originality in the theses. Table 1 summarises the references that were used to support the source of originality. Sources that were used less than three times were too many and are not included in the rankings, and their impact was deemed to be minimal. As shown in Table 1 , a total of 62 (84%) theses cited authoritative sources to support their originality claims. The most frequently cited source was [ 52 ], followed by [ 18 ] and [ 17 ] in second and third place, respectively. Table 1 References cited to support the source of originality Rank Source Frequency Rank Source Frequency 1 [ 51 ] 17 6 [ 11 ] 5 2 [ 18 ] 16 7 [ 12 ] 4 3 [ 17 ] 15 7 [ 14 ] 4 4 [ 22 ] 7 8 [ 23 ] 3 5 [ 3 ] 6 8 [ 5 ] 3 Table 2 presents the prevalence rate of originality for each indicator. The prevalence rates of originality were low for two indicators and high for four indicators. Table 2 indicates that the concept of originality was mainly discussed in the introductory chapter, with a few studies discussing it both in the introductory and concluding chapters. Many studies indicated the source(s) of originality of the thesis and intentionally mentioned the concept of originality. The originality indicators listed in Table 2 were mentioned to varying degrees, but no studies referenced more than half of them. Most studies mentioned only one aspect, highlighting the knowledge gap [ 53 ] or unexplored area, as shown in Fig. 3 . Table 2 Key indicators of originality in postgraduate theses (N = 84) Attribute Indicator Frequency Level of originality N % Originality prevalence Originality intentionally mentioned 70(84) 83 High Source(s) of originality of the thesis indicated 80(84) 95 High References cited to support the originality of the thesis 62(84) 74 High A section dedicated to discussing originality in the introductory chapter 80(84) 95 High Originality is only demonstrated in the concluding chapter 4(84) 5 Low Originality is discussed in both the introductory and concluding chapters 5(84) 6 Low Research question Novel research question (unique and has not been extensively explored in previous studies) 5(84) 6 Low Innovative methodology Innovative research methodology (used is new or significantly adapted from existing methods) 37(84) 44 Low Theoretical contributions Proposes a new theoretical model or framework 47(84) 56 High Builds upon or modifies an existing theory to better explain a phenomenon 37(84) 58 High Empirical contributions Provides new empirical data 84(84) 100 High Presents findings that contribute new knowledge to the field 84(84) 100 High Practical contributions Proposes practical applications 30(84) 36 Low Recommendations that may impact policy or professional practices. 84(84) 100 High Originality indicators Demonstrates originality in its literature review 84(84) 100 High Conclusions drawn are novel and provide new perspectives 84(84) 100 High 5.2 Variation in originality across different subfields of information studies Originality varied across different subfields of information studies. The subfields that were identified in the review of the theses included archives and records management 18(21%), library services 15(18%), knowledge and information resource management 12(14%), human information behaviour 9(11%), library management 9(11%), use and adoption of information technology 6(7%), information storage, preservation and retrieval 5(6%), information policy, privacy and laws 3(4%), library and information studies (LIS) education and pedagogy 2(2%), and one thesis each for the subfields that include bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, development and design of information technology and human–computer interaction (HCI)/interface design. Subfields with fewer than three theses were excluded for consistency with the approach in section 5.1 . The levels of originality varied between 41% and 73%, as shown in Table 3 . Overall, originality in research questions was consistently low across all subfields. The adoption of innovative research methodologies was also low in most subfields, except for library services, the use and adoption of information technology, and knowledge and information resource management. Table 3 Variation of originality across different subfields A B Subfield Indicator of originality Level of originality Subfield Indicator of originality Level of originality Archives and records management Originality prevalence 66% High Library management Originality prevalence 59% High Research question 11% Low Research question 11% Low Innovative methodology 39% Low Innovative methodology 33% Low Theoretical contributions 59% High Theoretical contributions 55% High Empirical contributions 100% High Empirical contributions 100% High Practical contributions 78% High Practical contributions 56% High Originality indicators 100% High Originality indicators 100% High Average 65% Average 59% High Library services Originality prevalence 50% High Use and adoption of information technology Originality prevalence 35% Low Research question 7% Low Research question 0% Low Innovative methodology 53% High Innovative methodology 50% High Theoretical contributions 53% High Theoretical contributions 42% low Empirical contributions 100% High Empirical contributions 100% High Practical contributions 77% High Practical contributions 55% High Originality indicators 100% High Originality indicators 100% High Average 63% High Average 55% High Knowledge and information resource management Originality prevalence 69% High Information storage, preservation and retrieval Originality prevalence 57% High Research question 17% Low Research question 0% Low Innovative methodology 50% High Innovative methodology 40% Low Theoretical contributions 80% High Theoretical contributions 70% High Empirical contributions 100% High Empirical contributions 100% High Practical contributions 96% High Practical contributions 80% Originality indicators 100% High Originality indicators 100% High Average 73% High Average 64% High Human information behaviour Originality prevalence 41% Low Information policy, privacy and laws Originality prevalence 33% Low Research question 11% Low Research question 0 Low Innovative methodology 11% Low Innovative methodology 0 Low Theoretical contributions 62% Theoretical contributions 34 Low Empirical contributions 100% High Empirical contributions 100 High Practical contributions 61% High Practical contributions 84 High Originality indicators 100% High Originality indicators 100 High Average 41% Low Average 50% High All areas are most frequently associated with high levels of originality, except human information behaviour, as illustrated in Fig. 2 . Knowledge and information resource management ranked highest in originality, followed by archives and records management. 5.3 Common sources of originality identified in the theses Table 2 summarises the indicators of originality in the theses that were analysed. The originality level is considered low if indicators total less than 50%, average if at 50%, and high if above 50%. The originality level was low in only 5(31%) out of 16 items, indicating that the level was high in 11 (69%) items. As shown in Table 2 , 95 per cent of the reviewed theses indicated the sources of originality of the work. Figure 3 shows that the sources of originality can be ranked between 2 and 30. The main sources of originality, ranked in order, identified in the theses include: researching unexplored areas, gathering empirical data, developing a new conceptual framework, model, or theory, and employing a unique methodology. 6. Discussion 6.1 Prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses Originality was intentionally mentioned in 83% of the theses, demonstrating that there was a common understanding of the concept by these studies. A few studies did not mention originality but highlighted the contribution and value of the study, while others referred to the significance of the study. There are various terms associated with the concept of originality and students and supervisors use the term originality to describe a range of different concepts [ 23 ], including "novelty" [ 54 ], “inventiveness” [ 13 ], "innovation," "relevance," and "creativity" [ 12 ], as well as "uniqueness," "significant contribution" [ 52 ], “original contribution” [ 55 ] and "impact" [ 5 ]. However, the findings indicate that "originality" is the preferred term when referring to a study's contribution to knowledge. Originality is essential for a study to demonstrate novelty, inventiveness, innovativeness, relevance, creativity, uniqueness, and to make a significant contribution or have an impact. The fact that 95% of the theses cited their sources of originality demonstrates that the studies recognised the importance and meaning of the concept at that level of study. Cryer [ 18 ] states that developing originality is a process that requires understanding what originality means, how it can be interpreted, and how it may manifest. The finding that 74% of the theses cited sources on originality indicators demonstrates a strong engagement with existing literature, positioning the research within a broader academic context [ 56 ] and establishing its credibility and scholarly value. It is commendable that the cited sources are authoritative, as indicated in Table 1 , with [ 52 ] being the most notable. While the concept of originality was mainly addressed in the introductory chapter, it was also referenced in some theses, both in the introductory and concluding chapters. However, both the introduction and the conclusion of a thesis must address the idea of originality. Establishing the research's distinctive contribution, establishing its significance, and placing it within the body of current literature are all done in the introduction [ 2 ]. The conclusion highlights the research's impact and its ability to advance knowledge by reiterating its uniqueness, providing a summary of its contributions. This dual focus helps to establish and reinforce the originality of the insights presented and the academic significance of the thesis. 6.2 Variation in originality across different subfields of information studies The variation in originality was not uniform in information studies subfields. The findings were able to identify topics and research areas that are most frequently associated with high levels of originality. Despite the high level of originality associated with knowledge and information resource management, archives, and records management, the research methods used limited the ability to determine the reasons behind it. Numerous factors, such as the subfield's nature, the methodology used, and the databases used for literature reviews, all have an impact on the variation in the levels of originality. Different subfields prioritise aspects of originality in varying ways. For instance, social scientists emphasise methodological uniqueness while humanists prioritise originality in their approaches and data [ 17 ]. The level of originality of a study can be greatly impacted by the databases used for literature reviews. For instance, Dimensions provides more comprehensive coverage, encompassing a greater variety of journals and conference proceedings, whereas Web of Science is renowned for its selective coverage, emphasising high-impact publications [ 57 ]. The recognition and distribution of original research may be impacted by this uneven coverage, with some subfields benefiting more from the thorough indexing that databases offer. Different subfields within information studies have unique characteristics that may influence the level of originality in their work. For instance, subfields such as bibliometrics and scientometrics often focus on quantitative analyses of publication patterns, citation networks, and research impact [ 58 ]. These areas typically employ standardised methodologies and established frameworks, which can restrict opportunities for originality. On the other hand, subfields such as knowledge management, records and archives administration and information storage, preservation and retrieval may provide more chances for innovative theoretical contributions and qualitative insights, resulting in a broader coverage of originality. Interdisciplinary research can enhance the breadth of originality coverage. Subfields that intersect with other disciplines, like digital humanities, can benefit from diverse perspectives and methodologies, which increases the potential for original contributions. These interdisciplinary influences often foster innovative approaches and provide novel insights that may be less common in more narrowly focused subfields. Perhaps the low level of originality in the human information behaviour subfield can be attributed to the fact that the field is still evolving and has yet to achieve cohesive theoretical frameworks and definitions [ 59 ]. 6.3. Common sources of originality identified in the theses This question aimed to identify the specific elements that signify originality in academic theses. Whilst “there are no absolute criteria, prescriptive principles or definitive solutions to follow” [ 3 , p. 13], originality in academic theses can be demonstrated in numerous ways. For instance, researching unexplored areas, novel research questions, gathering empirical data, developing a new conceptual framework, model, or theory, and employing a unique methodology can merit originality in a study. The originality of many theses that were reviewed stemmed from limited knowledge about the unexplored phenomenon in a specific context. Unexplored areas often emerge from unanswered questions and contradictions, commonly referred to as research gaps [ 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 ]. Originality arises from exploring areas that have not been previously studied, discovered, proven, or observed [ 2 , 11 , 23 , 63 , 64 ]. It contributes to knowledge, yields new insights, shifts people's perspectives, informs policy, advances the field, and pushes the boundaries of innovation. Research like this helps to bridge the knowledge gap identified by some scholars [ 53 , 61 ]. An original contribution offers a new or novel perspective [ 65 , 66 ]. This source of originality is closely linked to examining a phenomenon in a new context, as shown by five studies (see Fig. 2 ), which highlight this as an indicator of originality. Such studies bridge a spatial gap in knowledge as described in the next paragraphs. Identifying gaps is essential for advancing knowledge and ensuring the originality of research [ 67 ]. By identifying gaps in the literature and proposing innovative research questions, scholars can provide unique insights that set their work apart from previous studies [ 12 ]. Research gaps can be categorised into several types [ 53 , 60 , 61 , 65 , 67 , 68 ]: Knowledge gap: This occurs when something is unknown due to a lack of available information. Evidence gap: This refers to the absence of reliable findings regarding a phenomenon, often due to mixed or conflicting results. Empirical gap: This indicates that there are limited studies or insufficient data to support a particular idea. Methodological gap: This highlights the need for new approaches, as existing methods may be inadequate. Theoretical gap: This arises when there is no robust theory to explain a phenomenon or when existing theories are unsuitable due to discrepancies. Conceptual gap: This is the lack of clarity or consensus regarding key concepts within a field. Practical gap: This involves extensive theorisation with limited application in the real world. Temporal gap: This results from a lack of research conducted over a specific period, leaving gaps in understanding. Spatial gap (contextual gap): This refers to the absence of research in a particular geographical area, which limits the generalizability of findings. Population gap (contextual gap): This occurs when a certain group of people is excluded from previous studies. Research questions that are novel, innovative methodologies, and distinct theoretical and practical contributions [ 3 ] can lead to significant, creative, and impactful research. Only five studies had novel research questions, indicating a low level of originality relating to this indicator in the theses that were reviewed. Novel research questions are crucial to the scholarly impact and significance of doctoral research because they explore new areas, challenge existing frameworks, and provide fresh insights, thus advancing knowledge [ 68 ]. Novel research questions lead to the generation of a significant amount of new data and novel insights [ 17 , 18 , 52 ]. All studies. All the studies that were reviewed provided new data that contributes new knowledge to the field. Using multiple data collection instruments allows for the gathering of varied data through different approaches, methods, and strategies, resulting in original findings [ 68 ]. Several studies lacked transparency regarding this key originality indicator, as they did not include it as a source of originality. The application of new or significantly altered research methods was limited, as was the exploration of novel research questions. Innovative research methodologies that may reduce the methodological gap can generate new empirical data and insights. That entails the use of new or unconventional research methods, such as mixed methods research, artificial intelligence, virtual reality and biometric feedback in user experience research. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in mixed methods research enables researchers to utilise the advantages of both approaches, resulting in a more thorough understanding of complex phenomena [ 70 ]. Technology-based research has gained popularity with the advancement of Web 2.0 technologies [ 71 ]. Artificial intelligence can be used to analyse large datasets quickly and accurately and to identify patterns and correlations that might be missed by human researchers [ 72 ]. Virtual reality ethnography can effectively study sensitive topics and hard-to-reach populations by conducting immersive studies in virtual environments [ 73 , 74 ]. Researchers can interact with people virtually, reducing the conventional obstacles of social stigma and physical presence, which produces more genuine insights. Biometric feedback in user experience research utilises biometric data, such as eye tracking and heart rate monitoring, to improve user experience by providing objective measures of engagement and emotional responses [ 75 ]. This approach represents an innovative research methodology. This method provides a more in-depth understanding of user interactions and emotional reactions by going beyond conventional self-reporting techniques. While a low similarity index that meets acceptable standards of the discipline can indicate originality [ 27 ], none of the theses in the study acknowledged it as a source of originality for their work. Contributions that build upon or modify existing theoretical perspectives are deemed original [ 1 , 11 , 12 ]. Some scholars were concerned with the lack of theoretical contributions that are made in the field of information science [ 76 , 77 ]. The level of originality associated with theoretical contributions was relatively high in the reviewed studies. The originality of a thesis can be enhanced by a clearly defined conceptual framework that incorporates existing theories and addresses the theoretical gap in the field. The theoretical contributions of the reviewed theses were significant; however, most were not transparent as they failed to explicitly state this fact. While the recommendations from several theses may influence policy or professional practices, the studies did not clearly present this as an original contribution. Therefore, the reader is left to interpret the implications. Many PhD candidates describe their perceived originality instead of critically illustrating how their work makes a substantial contribution to the corpus of existing knowledge [ 3 ]. The same shortcoming applied to the conclusions, which were novel and provided new perspectives. A thesis's conclusions, which summarise the research findings and highlight the distinctive contributions to the area, are crucial in demonstrating its uniqueness [3; 1]. The conclusions act as a crucial element that allows the researcher to emphasise the importance and originality of their work, hence enhancing the uniqueness of the thesis [ 78 ]. While all the theses showcased originality in their literature review, the authors failed to mention it as an indicator of originality. Through the discovery of novel concepts, phenomena, or interpretations that were not previously understood or investigated, the literature review adds to originality [ 79 ]. In other words, gaps can be identified, and new research topics can be developed with the help of an original literature study. By addressing the implications of their research and elaborating on the significance of filling the identified gaps, doctoral candidates show how their literature offers an original contribution [ 80 ]. Conclusion The reviewed studies showed a remarkable level of originality. It was indeed a decade of excellence. The sources of originality included formulating a novel research question, employing innovative methodologies, developing new theoretical frameworks, or enhancing and refining existing theories. Furthermore, originality was demonstrated by presenting new empirical data, offering fresh insights or findings, proposing practical applications or solutions that have implications for policy and practice, showcasing creativity in the literature review, and drawing original conclusions and implications. While originality in postgraduate studies is important, it should be emphasised that highly original research is quite rare, and one would be setting their sights too high if they aim for it [ 22 ]. Postgraduate students should avoid trying to develop an entirely new perspective on a topic. It is enough for them to contribute incrementally to the understanding of a phenomenon. An original contribution or an incremental addition to knowledge can be assessed using at least six components from the following checklist derived from the findings of this study and the conceptual framework illustrated in Fig. 1 . The studies should also transparently demonstrate how each checklist aspect contributed to its originality. Overlooked and unexplored research areas Novel research questions (uniqueness and relevance of the research problem addressed) Use of new or adapted methodologies (innovative methodologies) Originality in the literature review (identifies gaps and presents a unique perspective on existing research) Distinct theoretical contributions including the development of a conceptual model, framework, or theory. Extends a theory (builds upon or modifies established theories in the field) Empirical contribution based on the collection and analysis of data that enhances our understanding of the cognitive field Offers new insights or findings Proposes practical applications Recommends contributions that may impact policy or professional practices Draws unique interpretations and conclusions from the research, providing new perspectives Absence of plagiarism with a similarity index that falls within an acceptable range, depending on the standards of the discipline. Limitations and future research The methodology used in this study has limitations. It was not able to establish the factors that contribute to the originality of postgraduate theses in Information Studies, such as institutional support, access to resources, and the role of supervisors. It was not possible to uncover obstacles that students encounter in striving for originality and the strategies they employ to address these challenges. Equally, the methodology used could not determine the role of supervisors and academic committees in fostering and evaluating originality in student research. The variation in originality in the subfields was equally difficult to establish. Future research can focus on these matters and how different institutions compare in terms of the originality of their postgraduate theses in Information Studies, highlighting any notable differences or similarities. This will make the results comparable and contribute to theory about originality in Information Studies theses. Abbreviations HCI: Human–computer interaction LIS: Library and information studies PhD: Doctor of Philosophy. Declarations Acknowledgements The contributions of two postgraduate fellows to the coding framework and the anonymous reviewer who provided feedback are acknowledged. Author contributions PN conceptualised the research, searched for the data, coded the data, and wrote the manuscript. Funding The research did not receive any funding. Data availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. The study does not involve humans, and it is not a clinical trial. Informed consent This was a content analysis of the theses that are available in the public domain. There was no need for any informed consent Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests I am a member of the editorial board of Discover Education . References Gelling, L., & Rodríguez-Borrego, M. A. (2014). Originality in doctoral research. Nurse Researcher , 21(6), pp. 6–7. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.6.s2 Murray, R. (2017). How to write a thesis (4th ed.). Open University Press. Gill, P., & Dolan, G. (2015). Originality and the PhD: what is it and how can it be demonstrated? Nurse Researcher , 22(6), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.7748/NR.22.6.11.E1335 Johnston, R. (2008). On structuring subjective judgements: originality, significance and rigour in RAE 2008. Higher Education Quarterly , 62(1/2), 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00378.x Shibayama, S., & Wang, J. (2020). Measuring originality in science. Scientometrics , 122, 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03263-0 Sánchez, I. R., Mantecón, A., Williamsh, A. M., Makkonen, T., & Kim, Y. R. (2022). Originality: the holy grail of tourism research. Journal of Travel Research, 61(6), 1219-1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211033343 Kearns, H. & Finn, J. (2017). Supervising PhD students: a practical guide and toolkit . Thinkwell. Williams, A., Jones, M. G., Jonsson, R., Harris, R. A., & Mulvany, M. J. (2019). A comparison of doctoral training in biomedicine and medicine for some UK and Scandinavian graduate programmes: learning from each other. FEBS Open Bio , 9(5), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12629 Zulfikar, T., Elismawati, E., & Yuhardi, Y. (2014). Theses originality: an initial effort to examine students’ final projects . Al-Ta Lim Journal , 21(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v21i2.86 Dirk, L. (1999). A measure of originality: the elements of science. Social Studies of Science , 29(5), 765–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029005004 Dunleavy, P. (2003). Authoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation . Palgrave Macmillan. Baptistaa, A., Frickb, L., Holleyc, K., Remmikd, M., & Tesche, J. (2015). The doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge: considering relationships between originality, creativity, and innovation. Frontline Learning Research , 3(3), 55 – 67. Demirtas, I., Gedik, K., Gedik, N., & Avdan, Z. Y. (2023). On the concept of originality in scientific studies. Yükseköğretim Dergisi , 13(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.23.1169711 Edwards M. (2014). What does originality in research mean? A student's perspective. Nurse Researcher , 21(6), 8–11. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.8.e1254 Badley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor‐rated: the PhD by published work. Quality Assurance in Education , 17(4), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910992313 Clarke, G., & Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of ‘originality’ in the PhD: how is it interpreted by examiners? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , 39(7), 803–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870970 Guetzkow, J., Lamont, M., & Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? American Sociological Review , 69(2), 190–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900203 Cryer, P. (2006). The research student’s guide to success . (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill. Mubazi, J. K. (2019). Quality criteria of a research output. American Journal of Biomedical Science & Research , 3(2), 265–266. https://doi.org/10.34297/AJBSR.2019.03.000674 Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management , 27(2), 189–207. Vagarinho, J. P. (2019). How to identify originality in a scientific manuscript or in a doctoral thesis? Educar em Revista , 35(73). https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.58892 (Original in Portuguese). Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2006). How to research . Open University Press. Phillips, E. M., Pugh, D. S., & Johnson, C. (2015). How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors . 6th edition. Open University Press. Alajami, A. (2020). Beyond originality in scientific research: considering relations among originality, novelty, and ecological thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 38, 100723. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2020.100723 Glade-Wright, R. E. (2017). New insights effectively shared: originality and new knowledge in Creative Arts postgraduate degrees. Qualitative Research Journal , 17(2), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2016-0023 Pinto, M. da G. L. C. (2016). Academic writing: a game of forces between the generation of ideas and their implementation. Sign , 41 (Special), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.17058/signo.v1i1.7325 (Original in Portuguese) Daraban, N.-V. (2024). Academic puzzle - The relationship between originality, plagiarism and similarity in the contents of doctoral theses. Challenges of the Knowledge Society , 17(1), 505–514. Suteu, C. (2022). The assessment of originality in academic research. Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Musica , 67(1):165–173. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbmusica.2022.1.11 Wordvice HJ. (2024). Masters thesis vs. PhD dissertation: key differences. Retrieved on 4 June 2025 from https://blog.wordvice.com/dissertation-vs-thesis-key-differences/ Stevens, G. (2025). PhD thesis vs. masters dissertation: making the transition. Retrieved on 4 June 2025 from https://academic-writing.uk/phd-thesis-vs-masters-dissertation/ Asubiaro, T. V., & Badmus, O. M. (2020). Collaboration clusters, interdisciplinarity, scope and subject classification of library and information science research from Africa: An analysis of Web of Science publications from 1996 to 2015. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science , 52 (4), 1169–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620907958. Bawden, D. & Robinson, L. (2016). Library and information science. In K.B. Jensen, E.W. Rothenbuhler, J.D. Pooley & R.T. Craig (eds). The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect113 Ngulube, P. & Ukwoma, S. C. (2021). Prevalence of methodological transparency in the use of mixed methods research in library and information science research in South Africa and Nigeria, 2009–2015. Library & Information Science Research , 43(4), 101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101124 Rooman, U. & Rahaman, M. (2024). Romanticism revisited: exploring the intersection of romanticism with enlightenment and transcendentalism through the lens of the neoclassicism. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(4), 1628-1635. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804217 Glăveanu, V. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. Review of General Psychology , 24(4), 335-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763 Amabile, T. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In E H. Kessler (Ed.), Encyclopedia of management theory (pp. 134–139). Sage http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276090.n42 Hennessey, B. A. (2015). Creative behavior, motivation, environment and culture: the building of a systems model. Journal of Creative Behavior , 49(3), 194–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOCB.97 Ngulube, P. & Mosha, N.F. (2023). Transparency in the use of theoretical frameworks for the advancement of knowledge in core library and information science journals: a systematic review. African Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science , 33(2), 129–146. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ajlais.v33i2.2 Ncube, M. M., & Ngulube, P. (2025). Mapping theoretical approaches: a scoping review of data analytics in higher education. Discover Education , 4, 201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00647-8 Plucker, J. A. (2017). Creativity and innovation: theory, research, and practice . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233930 Sibomana, E. (2016). Daring to be different: a postgraduate perspective on originality. postgraduate study in South Africa- surviving and succeeding. In L. Frick, C. Motshoane, C. McMaster & C. Murphy (Eds). Postgraduate study in South Africa (pp. 205- . SUN PRESS https://doi.org/10.18820/9781928357247/18 Briggs, J. G. (2016). Grappling with originality and grounding in qualitative data analysis. In J. McKinley & H. Rose(Eds.), Doing research in Applied Linguistics: realities, dilemmas, and solutions , (pp. 182–191). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315389608-17 Kawamoto, M., Koizumi, M., & Yoshikane, F. (2023). Proposal of a qualitative content analysis process for a solo researcher. Libri , 73(2), 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2022-0068 Pınar, Y., Gür, D., Pınar, N. K., Demir, K., Iltar, E. K., Songören, S. A., & Özenici, S. (2023). A comparative study of postgraduate theses in pedagogy and preschool education in Austria and Turkey. Frontiers in Psychology, 13:1051923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1051923 Karpinski, C., Vieira, K. R., & Guerner, A. de H. V. (2021). Teaching and research of epistemology in stricto sensu graduate programs in the area of Information Science in Brazil. Ibero-American Journal of Information Science , 14(3), 844–865. https://doi.org/10.26512/rici.v14.n3.2021.38880 (Original in Portuguese). Library and Information Services. (2025). Theses and dissertations (Information Science). Retrieved on 3 June from https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/2802 Faria-Schützer, D., Surita, F. G., Alves, V. L. P., Bastos, R. A., Campos, C. J. G., & Turato, E. R. (2021). Seven steps for qualitative treatment in health research: the clinical-qualitative content analysis. Ciencia & Saude Coletiva , 26(1), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020261.07622019 Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica , 22(3), 276–282. Lin, C.-S., & Jeng, W. (2017). Using content analysis in LIS research: experiences with coding schemes construction and reliability measures. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries(QQML) , 4(1), 87–95. Ngulube, P. 2023. Improving the quality of reporting findings using computer data analysis applications in educational research in context. Heliyon Education , 9(9), e19683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19683 Phillips, E. M. & Pugh, D. S. (2005). How to get a PhD. A handbook for students and their supervisors . 4th edition. Open University Press. Miles, D. A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research gaps. In Doctoral student workshop: finding research gaps-research methods and strategies , Dallas, Texas (pp. 1-15). Trapido, D. (2015). How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities. Research Policy , 44, 1488–1500. Glade-Wright, R. E, & A. Smyth, E. A. (2023). Metaphors for doctoral research: Fundamental tenets and creative courage. TEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses , 27(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.52086/001c.75235 Zul, M. (2024). 10 Reasons why citations are important. Retrieved on 24 June 2025 from https://publishingstate.com/10-reasons-why-citations-are-important/ Asubiaro, T. V., & Onaolapo, S. (2023). A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 74(7), 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24758 Singh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M. et al. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics , 126, 5113–5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5 Hobohm, H.-C. (2024). Information behaviour. In P. Heisig (ed.), Handbook on information sciences (pp. 98–116). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035343706.00014 Hassan, M. (2024). Research gap – Types, examples and how to identify. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://researchmethod.net/research-gap/ Nacke, L. (2023). The 7 research gaps. Write Insight Newsletter , Jun 20. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://lennartnacke.com/the-7-research-gaps/ Robinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., & McKoy, N. A. (2011). Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology , 64(12), 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009 Cottrell, S.(2014). Dissertations and project reports: A step by step guide . Palgrave MacMillan. Shaheen, M. (2021). The concept of originality in academic research of engineering. Education Research International , 9462201. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9462201 Lovitts, B. & Wert, E. (2009). Developing quality dissertations in the social sciences: a graduate student's guide to achieving excellence . Stylus Publishing. Gill, P. (Academic). (2018). Originality in doctoral research: what is it and how can it be demonstrated? [Video]. Sage Research Methods . https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526442413 Al-Saraf, E., & Rautenbach, E. (2025). The research gap (literature gap): How to find the elusive research gap – with practical examples. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://gradcoach.com/research-gap/ Bozward, D. (2024). Demonstrating originality in your PhD proposal. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://david.bozward.com/2024/07/demonstrating-originality-in-your-phd-proposal/ Neuman, W. L. (2021). Social research methods: quantitative and qualitative approaches . 8th ed. Pearson. Maxwell, J. A. (2022). Integration in mixed methods research: An alternative perspective. In J. H. Hitchcock & A. J. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 86–93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432828-8 Connaway, L. S., & Powell, R. R. (2010). Basic research methods for librarians . 5th ed. Libraries Unlimited. Neetha, S. S., Sahoo, G. S., Karthigaikuar, P., Jayasudha, S., Shinde, G. R., & Lone, Z. A. (2024). Exploring the role of automated reasoning in big data analysis. 1–6. 15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) , Kamand, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccnt61001.2024.10725336 Ceuterick, M., & Ingraham, C. (2021). Immersive storytelling and affective ethnography in virtual reality. The Review of Communication , 21(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2021.1881610 Messeri, L. (2022). Ethnography of/and virtual reality. In E. Costa, P. G. Lange, N. Haynes & J. Sinanan, (Eds.), The Routledge companion to media anthropology , (pp. 570–580). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003175605-55 Singla, D., & Verma, (2023). Machine and deep learning in biometric authentication: a review. 2023 International Conference on Advancement in Computation & Computer Technologies (InCACCT) , Gharuan, India, pp. 22-26, https://doi.org/10.1109/InCACCT57535.2023.10141692. Cibangu, S. K. (2013). A memo of qualitative research for information science: toward theory construction. Journal of Documentation , 69(2), 194–213. Vakkari, P. (2008). Trends and approaches in information behaviour research. Information Research, 13(4). Retrieved on 5 June 2025 from https://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper361.html Orozco-Orozco, J. Z. (2023). Conclusions and proposals as fundamental part of the thesis research. Journal of University Policies, 7-17:12-25. https://doi.org/10.35429/JUP.2023.17.7.12.25 More, H. (2024).Originality: a criteria of a good research. Retrieved on 28 June 2025 from https://thelegalquotient.com/research-methodology/originality-a-criteria-of-a-good-research/4489/ Nygaard, L. P., & Solli, K. (2021). Strategies for writing a thesis by publication in the social sciences and humanities . Routledge. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. I am a member of the editorial board of Discover Education Supplementary Files AppendixIII.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 06 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 18 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 14 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 16 Jul, 2025 First submitted to journal 16 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7004169","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Systematic Review","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":517754156,"identity":"1cc98e80-3e77-47d0-aba6-69f80478e832","order_by":0,"name":"Patrick Ngulube","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of South Africa","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Patrick","middleName":"","lastName":"Ngulube","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-29 17:38:04","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91831975,"identity":"c46d9f00-364d-4a4c-a496-0db9364fb66d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:14:39","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":132645,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OriginalityinresearchDiscover.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/86f60f60af326ec60ae3350b.docx"},{"id":91830058,"identity":"cbbb2e6c-76e3-4eb7-8733-a86a34f0e6be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3452,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a464c968cd14f25bf4405e275338d32.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/7499b771a92d87021e607dce.json"},{"id":91830065,"identity":"f2cf0a5f-78b4-4941-a965-2557472e89ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":184087,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a464c968cd14f25bf4405e275338d321enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/897c127b36a1977f7926688b.xml"},{"id":91830063,"identity":"abfd3849-dfaa-4965-b44d-10b8968fd132","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":33716,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/cdfb9056ff8e2619cba28ba2.png"},{"id":91830750,"identity":"b49c6166-76c5-4d47-9e42-410824587158","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:06:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/0b3552e62a2cb7c3e80f7f28.png"},{"id":91830061,"identity":"576ed5af-47d8-40da-b093-ca60a3b8e5f1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":15418,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/3cc2c1551f85c53b384eb280.png"},{"id":91830064,"identity":"f711ec39-a4b0-4b6f-9dd5-d7b3754bd23e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16314,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/2c82492c26c42867d2d5c596.png"},{"id":91830066,"identity":"1eba040a-c5e7-48f2-a16c-3df062f39a5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183051,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"3a464c968cd14f25bf4405e275338d321structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/1a705541fb2b6bbf41546e60.xml"},{"id":91830067,"identity":"41010ff4-cae6-4211-b070-55d2b7ffe8bb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":197278,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/4ccac1672b4f7b6c9beba997.html"},{"id":91830057,"identity":"d0d18312-4596-481b-8194-ff873f534acd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":87786,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual framework on indicators of originality in research projects\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/e88e675db206242c4426b78b.png"},{"id":91830056,"identity":"a85e8aac-2a52-483d-9e06-f2bfead6e351","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100689,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAreas of research that demonstrate high levels of originality\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/12734957a6d5ed06364f6180.png"},{"id":91830748,"identity":"196bc03c-4a25-4d64-ace4-9fdc8bead89d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:06:39","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":20906,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSources of originality identified in the theses\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/1465efe58193a3129b5ab056.png"},{"id":91832585,"identity":"61e51edc-6bfa-4f4f-9cf1-920790f052f6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 09:22:39","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1298968,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/fe51ac1b-3e0e-4e56-855a-460d9f353abc.pdf"},{"id":91830055,"identity":"f16fb63e-ca06-4b31-881f-421726f7bffb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-22 08:58:39","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":18883,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixIII.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7004169/v1/d801b0d99eb337c9359a427f.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. I am a member of the editorial board of Discover Education","formattedTitle":"Exploring Originality in Postgraduate Education in Context: A Decade of Academic Excellence","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction and background","content":"\u003cp\u003eOriginality is a cornerstone of academic excellence in postgraduate education and is a key element of doctoral research across all disciplines, forming the foundation of all universities' requirements for postgraduate research and writing [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. Originality in research is crucial for several reasons, with the most important being the generation of new knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Writing a thesis is a requirement for graduating from any academic institution. The granting of a doctorate requires demonstrating an original contribution to advancing the boundaries of knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. A PhD thesis must significantly contribute to the existing knowledge in the study's subject area by offering something new and valuable [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. However, many PhD candidates face challenges in producing theses that demonstrate a high level of originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. The problem is compounded by the fact that there is \u0026ldquo;no precise definition of scientific originality\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, p. 765], and many universities, especially those in Europe, \u0026ldquo;are almost silent on how originality is to be determined\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, p. 27]. That implies that the way that originality of research can be assessed is greatly contested [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e], partly because it is based on \u0026ldquo;problematically vague and subjective quality standards\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, p. 336].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe concept of \"publishability\" is a key indicator of originality in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, in the arts, humanities, and social sciences, originality is often linked to \"intellectual originality,\" which is defined more broadly [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. Although originality can vary from discipline to discipline, it refers to making a unique contribution to knowledge, which is vital for advancing a field of study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]. Originality has been defined in various ways, including the use of new approaches, theories, methods, or data; the exploration of new topics; research conducted in areas that are not well studied; or the production of new findings [3, 6, 15, 17; 20, 21]. Some scholars identified fifteen key areas that can constitute originality in a PhD, which can serve as a guide for candidates to understand the different dimensions of originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Alajami [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] proposes a synthesis model of originality and explores the relationships among the concepts of uniqueness, novelty, and originality, arguing that the ecosystem significantly influences the originality aspect. Original thoughts are not only rare but also carry the qualities of creativity and inventiveness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Unique ideas can range from the ordinary to the extraordinary. As a result, the most innovative concepts are those that are both rare and exhibit creativity, inventiveness, or an element of surprise [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality in postgraduate theses comes from fresh perspectives and interpretations of existing literature [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. This highlights how scholarly work is interconnected and requires critical reading of materials, proper acknowledgement, the creation of a distinct authorial voice, and a clear differentiation between plagiarism and intertextuality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. In scholarly writing, interpretation should take precedence over simple replication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Following its characterisation by some scholars, originality in postgraduate theses stems from unique approaches, topics, hypotheses, methods, data, findings, or theories [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. It emphasises the importance of situating research within existing literature to clearly demonstrate meaningful contributions to knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn other words, originality is often linked to creativity, which emphasises the production of knowledge that is not only novel but also meaningful [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. The differences among disciplines, the relationship between existing knowledge and new ideas, and doctoral training conditions influence perceptions and expectations regarding originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Originality in postgraduate theses within Information Studies can arise from various factors, such as creativity, innovation, novelty, relevance, uniqueness and the utilisation of original data. Creative and innovative practices can arise from applying existing theories to new data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. They also involve developing novel methods for analysis, introducing new solutions to old problems, reinterpreting established theories, and updating prior perspectives [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. These elements collectively shape the expectations for doctoral contributions to knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of the study is to explore originality in Information Studies theses from 2015\u0026ndash;2025 to make recommendations on how academic excellence can be achieved. The focus was on PhD theses rather than master\u0026rsquo;s dissertations. Even if a master's dissertation may make an original contribution to a field, novelty is crucial for obtaining a PhD [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, PhD studies require in-depth analysis, original research methodologies, and thorough literature reviews, focusing on developing new theories or data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough there is no official list of topics that define the field of information studies, this study relied on the compilations of some scholars to identify the key themes in the theses being reviewed (See Appendix I) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. These lists are based on the premise that information studies involve the creation, organisation, management, communication, and use of recorded information. This field encompasses professional activities such as librarianship and archiving, while also focusing on educating professionals and conducting research to improve practices within the discipline. A longitudinal study design was used to analyse theses over a ten-year period (2015\u0026ndash;2025). The year 2015 was chosen as the starting point for this study due to a noticeable gap in the deposit of theses from 2010 to 2015. There was a consistent deposit of these research outputs in the institutional repository from 2015 onwards. The study covers a timeframe that exceeds the recommended five years for assessing scholarly communication [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Conceptual framework","content":"\u003cp\u003eSeveral theories can be used to analyse originality in research, including romantic originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e], the sociocultural theory of creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e], the componential theory of creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e], and the systems model of creativity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e]. No single theory offers a complete perspective. Based on the work of [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e], a conceptual framework was developed from components of the componential theory, relevant literature, and the study\u0026rsquo;s context as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe componential theory of creativity explores how new and useful ideas are generated and implemented, highlighting the role of originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e]. This theory is ideal for content analysis, as it emphasises originality as a key factor distinguishing creative works from mere reproductions. This theory can be used to investigate the link between creativity and originality in academic research. Creative thinking and innovation are essential for producing new knowledge, highlighting both the novelty of ideas and the significance of research outcomes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. The focus of the study was on how the reviewed theses generated and implemented novel ideas or solutions to existing problems in Information Studies to achieve excellence. The conceptual framework in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e seeks to examine the evolution of themes, methodologies, and contributions in Information Studies theses from 2015 to 2025. It emphasises originality through the lens of innovation and creativity theory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e and backed by existing literature, originality can be attained through various approaches [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. The framework illustrates the progression of research, beginning with a novel research question and advancing through methodological and theoretical development to contributions that highlight originality. Each interconnected variable suggests that changes in one can affect others. It operates on the principle that originality is achieved through innovative thinking and creative methodologies. This framework supports the examination of how theses in Information Studies evolve in originality by showing the interrelation of themes, methodologies, and contributions from 2015 to 2025.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA novel research question is essential for originality in academic work and influences the choice of methodology and theoretical framework. Innovative methodologies often emerge from the research question, producing new empirical data that enriches both the literature review and the conclusions drawn. Innovative methodologies can produce insights that support the thesis's originality and potentially impact policy or practice. Original research questions can drive the development of new theories or adaptations of existing ones. By building upon or modifying existing theoretical frameworks and using new frameworks, researchers can generate valuable empirical data that informs policy or practice. Insights typically emerge from the combination of innovative methodologies, novel research questions, and the refinement of existing theories. A comprehensive literature review supports the formation of these original questions and validates the thesis's contributions. Ultimately, the synthesis of these elements leads to original conclusions and implications, reinforcing the thesis's overall significance.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"3. Statement of the problem","content":"\u003cp\u003eOriginality is a key characteristic of doctoral research. However, there is significant confusion about what qualifies as originality in a PhD and how to clearly demonstrate contributions to knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. There is also a lack of institutional guidance regarding what defines originality in a PhD study [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e]. Several authors stress the necessity for further research to clarify the criteria and evaluation of originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. Many doctoral candidates outline their perceived originality without critically showcasing how their research significantly contributes to the body of knowledge. Key elements that contribute to originality include the presentation of new knowledge, innovative methodologies, and distinctive viewpoints that advance the field. However, relatively little is known about the originality of Information Studies theses in context. The aim of this study is to examine the themes, methodologies, and contributions of information studies theses evolved to demonstrate originality from 2015 to 2025 using aspects of the innovation and creativity theory. The following specific research questions underpinned the study:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses in Information Studies from 2015 to 2025\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does the extent of originality vary across different subfields of Information Studies?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhich are the common sources of originality identified in the theses in Information Studies from 2015 to 2025?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative content analysis approach to examine the originality in postgraduate theses. Qualitative content analysis involves a systematic examination of qualitative data to identify patterns and meanings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. The research method was used successfully to investigate postgraduate theses in education in Austria and Turkey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. A content analysis was conducted on postgraduate projects in Information Science in Brazil from 2018 to 2021 to determine the teaching of epistemology in postgraduate studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e]. The same research method was used to analyse over 10 theses from an academic institution in Asia, focusing on factors that reduce the originality of students' theses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e]. The cited studies demonstrate the effectiveness of qualitative content analysis in researching patterns of scholarly communication in theses, within certain limits.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe process began with data preparation, which included identifying and compiling the theses for analysis from the institutional repository [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e]. The theses selected for this study were from postgraduate programmes in Information Studies. The theses were read to gain a general understanding of their content. Only those that were written in English and indicated the level of study and the date of publication on the title page were selected. A total of 84 theses were identified, read and selected within the study period. The data was first captured in Microsoft Excel\u0026reg; before being exported to ATLAS.ti Version 23\u0026reg;. A data coding framework was created to categorise different aspects of originality, such as novel research questions, innovative methodologies, and unique theoretical contributions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e]. The codes were developed deductively from the research questions and conceptual framework (See Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) that guided the study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo ensure the framework's accuracy, two postgraduate fellows independently coded the data after receiving training [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Discrepancies in coding were addressed through discussion, and a consensus was reached. All the categories and codes in the framework were clearly defined to ensure that all coders interpreted the data consistently. The final coding schema was confirmed, as detailed in Appendix II, after calculating intra-rater reliability using Cohen's Kappa statistical measure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e49\u003c/span\u003e]. The agreement level was high at 0.80, nearing perfect agreement, which is 1, given that Cohen's Kappa values range from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;1 to 1. The coding framework was pretested on a small sample of data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e]. Thus, definitions of some codes that were unclear or too broad were revised, which made them more specific and precise. A detailed codebook that documented all codes, definitions, and examples was maintained to maintain consistency. Discussions to build consensus on difficult or ambiguous cases were used in a collaborative manner to enhance the reliability of the analysis. All coding decisions and changes to the framework were documented.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eATLAS.ti Version 23\u0026reg;, a qualitative data analysis software tool, was used to manage and analyse the data, ensuring consistency and accuracy in coding [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. The analytical approach included descriptive, comparative, and thematic methods. The descriptive analysis provided a summary of the frequency and distribution of originality indicators within the sample. All decimal points have been rounded to the nearest whole number. The comparative analysis examined the levels of originality across different years to identify trends and patterns. Lastly, the thematic analysis focused on identifying and analysing recurring themes related to originality in the theses. In line with ethical considerations, the identities of the authors were anonymised in the reporting of results. Informed consent from the institution and authors was not required, as the data are publicly available. Grammarly\u0026reg; was used to paraphrase and polish the sentences, and SciSpace\u0026reg; for Chrome was employed in the review of the literature. Although this study did not involve human participants, it was conducted in accordance with the ethics policy of the parent institution.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"5. Findings","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings align with the research questions and conceptual framework.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1. Prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study aimed to map the prevalence rates of originality in the theses. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarises the references that were used to support the source of originality. Sources that were used less than three times were too many and are not included in the rankings, and their impact was deemed to be minimal. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, a total of 62 (84%) theses cited authoritative sources to support their originality claims. The most frequently cited source was [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], followed by [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] and [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] in second and third place, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReferences cited to support the source of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRank\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e1\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e2\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e3\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e7\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e4\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e5\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e8\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the prevalence rate of originality for each indicator. The prevalence rates of originality were low for two indicators and high for four indicators. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e indicates that the concept of originality was mainly discussed in the introductory chapter, with a few studies discussing it both in the introductory and concluding chapters. Many studies indicated the source(s) of originality of the thesis and intentionally mentioned the concept of originality. The originality indicators listed in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e were mentioned to varying degrees, but no studies referenced more than half of them. Most studies mentioned only one aspect, highlighting the knowledge gap [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e] or unexplored area, as shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKey indicators of originality in postgraduate theses (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAttribute\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicator\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrequency\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"5\" rowspan=\"6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality intentionally mentioned\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e83\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSource(s) of originality of the thesis indicated\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eReferences cited to support the originality of the thesis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e74\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA section dedicated to discussing originality in the introductory chapter\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality is only demonstrated in the concluding chapter\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality is discussed in both the introductory and concluding chapters\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNovel research question (unique and has not been extensively explored in previous studies)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative research methodology (used is new or significantly adapted from existing methods)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e44\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProposes a new theoretical model or framework\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e47(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilds upon or modifies an existing theory to better explain a phenomenon\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e37(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProvides new empirical data\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePresents findings that contribute new knowledge to the field\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProposes practical applications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e30(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e36\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommendations that may impact policy or professional practices.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemonstrates originality in its literature review\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eConclusions drawn are novel and provide new perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84(84)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2 Variation in originality across different subfields of information studies\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality varied across different subfields of information studies. The subfields that were identified in the review of the theses included archives and records management 18(21%), library services 15(18%), knowledge and information resource management 12(14%), human information behaviour 9(11%), library management 9(11%), use and adoption of information technology 6(7%), information storage, preservation and retrieval 5(6%), information policy, privacy and laws 3(4%), library and information studies (LIS) education and pedagogy 2(2%), and one thesis each for the subfields that include bibliometrics, scientometrics and informetrics, development and design of information technology and human\u0026ndash;computer interaction (HCI)/interface design. Subfields with fewer than three theses were excluded for consistency with the approach in section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.1\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe levels of originality varied between 41% and 73%, as shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e. Overall, originality in research questions was consistently low across all subfields. The adoption of innovative research methodologies was also low in most subfields, except for library services, the use and adoption of information technology, and knowledge and information resource management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariation of originality across different subfields\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eB\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubfield\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicator of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubfield\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eIndicator of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLevel of originality\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eArchives and records management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e66%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLibrary management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e39%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e59%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e78%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e56%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e65%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e59%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLibrary services\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse and adoption of information technology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e35%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e53%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003elow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e77%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e55%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e63%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e55%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge and information resource management\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e69%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformation storage, preservation and retrieval\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e57%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e17%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e70%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e96%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e80%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e73%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e64%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHuman information behaviour\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e41%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"6\" rowspan=\"7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInformation policy, privacy and laws\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality prevalence\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch question\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e11%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInnovative methodology\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e62%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e61%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical contributions\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e84\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality indicators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e100\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e41%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eLow\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eAverage\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e50%\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAll areas are most frequently associated with high levels of originality, except human information behaviour, as illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. Knowledge and information resource management ranked highest in originality, followed by archives and records management.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3 Common sources of originality identified in the theses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarises the indicators of originality in the theses that were analysed. The originality level is considered low if indicators total less than 50%, average if at 50%, and high if above 50%. The originality level was low in only 5(31%) out of 16 items, indicating that the level was high in 11 (69%) items. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, 95 per cent of the reviewed theses indicated the sources of originality of the work. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows that the sources of originality can be ranked between 2 and 30. The main sources of originality, ranked in order, identified in the theses include: researching unexplored areas, gathering empirical data, developing a new conceptual framework, model, or theory, and employing a unique methodology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.1 Prevalence of the coverage of originality in postgraduate theses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality was intentionally mentioned in 83% of the theses, demonstrating that there was a common understanding of the concept by these studies. A few studies did not mention originality but highlighted the contribution and value of the study, while others referred to the significance of the study. There are various terms associated with the concept of originality and students and supervisors use the term originality to describe a range of different concepts [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e], including \"novelty\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e], \u0026ldquo;inventiveness\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e], \"innovation,\" \"relevance,\" and \"creativity\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], as well as \"uniqueness,\" \"significant contribution\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e], \u0026ldquo;original contribution\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e] and \"impact\" [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. However, the findings indicate that \"originality\" is the preferred term when referring to a study's contribution to knowledge. Originality is essential for a study to demonstrate novelty, inventiveness, innovativeness, relevance, creativity, uniqueness, and to make a significant contribution or have an impact.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fact that 95% of the theses cited their sources of originality demonstrates that the studies recognised the importance and meaning of the concept at that level of study. Cryer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] states that developing originality is a process that requires understanding what originality means, how it can be interpreted, and how it may manifest. The finding that 74% of the theses cited sources on originality indicators demonstrates a strong engagement with existing literature, positioning the research within a broader academic context [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e] and establishing its credibility and scholarly value. It is commendable that the cited sources are authoritative, as indicated in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, with [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e] being the most notable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile the concept of originality was mainly addressed in the introductory chapter, it was also referenced in some theses, both in the introductory and concluding chapters. However, both the introduction and the conclusion of a thesis must address the idea of originality. Establishing the research's distinctive contribution, establishing its significance, and placing it within the body of current literature are all done in the introduction [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. The conclusion highlights the research's impact and its ability to advance knowledge by reiterating its uniqueness, providing a summary of its contributions. This dual focus helps to establish and reinforce the originality of the insights presented and the academic significance of the thesis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.2 \u003cem\u003eVariation in originality across different subfields of information studies\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe variation in originality was not uniform in information studies subfields. The findings were able to identify topics and research areas that are most frequently associated with high levels of originality. Despite the high level of originality associated with knowledge and information resource management, archives, and records management, the research methods used limited the ability to determine the reasons behind it. Numerous factors, such as the subfield's nature, the methodology used, and the databases used for literature reviews, all have an impact on the variation in the levels of originality. Different subfields prioritise aspects of originality in varying ways. For instance, social scientists emphasise methodological uniqueness while humanists prioritise originality in their approaches and data [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe level of originality of a study can be greatly impacted by the databases used for literature reviews. For instance, Dimensions provides more comprehensive coverage, encompassing a greater variety of journals and conference proceedings, whereas Web of Science is renowned for its selective coverage, emphasising high-impact publications [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. The recognition and distribution of original research may be impacted by this uneven coverage, with some subfields benefiting more from the thorough indexing that databases offer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDifferent subfields within information studies have unique characteristics that may influence the level of originality in their work. For instance, subfields such as bibliometrics and scientometrics often focus on quantitative analyses of publication patterns, citation networks, and research impact [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. These areas typically employ standardised methodologies and established frameworks, which can restrict opportunities for originality. On the other hand, subfields such as knowledge management, records and archives administration and information storage, preservation and retrieval may provide more chances for innovative theoretical contributions and qualitative insights, resulting in a broader coverage of originality. Interdisciplinary research can enhance the breadth of originality coverage. Subfields that intersect with other disciplines, like digital humanities, can benefit from diverse perspectives and methodologies, which increases the potential for original contributions. These interdisciplinary influences often foster innovative approaches and provide novel insights that may be less common in more narrowly focused subfields. Perhaps the low level of originality in the human information behaviour subfield can be attributed to the fact that the field is still evolving and has yet to achieve cohesive theoretical frameworks and definitions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.3. Common sources of originality identified in the theses\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis question aimed to identify the specific elements that signify originality in academic theses. Whilst \u0026ldquo;there are no absolute criteria, prescriptive principles or definitive solutions to follow\u0026rdquo; [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, p. 13], originality in academic theses can be demonstrated in numerous ways. For instance, researching unexplored areas, novel research questions, gathering empirical data, developing a new conceptual framework, model, or theory, and employing a unique methodology can merit originality in a study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe originality of many theses that were reviewed stemmed from limited knowledge about the unexplored phenomenon in a specific context. Unexplored areas often emerge from unanswered questions and contradictions, commonly referred to as research gaps [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e62\u003c/span\u003e]. Originality arises from exploring areas that have not been previously studied, discovered, proven, or observed [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e63\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR64\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e64\u003c/span\u003e]. It contributes to knowledge, yields new insights, shifts people's perspectives, informs policy, advances the field, and pushes the boundaries of innovation. Research like this helps to bridge the knowledge gap identified by some scholars [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn original contribution offers a new or novel perspective [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR66\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e66\u003c/span\u003e]. This source of originality is closely linked to examining a phenomenon in a new context, as shown by five studies (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), which highlight this as an indicator of originality. Such studies bridge a spatial gap in knowledge as described in the next paragraphs.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIdentifying gaps is essential for advancing knowledge and ensuring the originality of research [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e]. By identifying gaps in the literature and proposing innovative research questions, scholars can provide unique insights that set their work apart from previous studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Research gaps can be categorised into several types [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e60\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e61\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR65\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR67\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e67\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eKnowledge gap: This occurs when something is unknown due to a lack of available information.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEvidence gap: This refers to the absence of reliable findings regarding a phenomenon, often due to mixed or conflicting results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical gap: This indicates that there are limited studies or insufficient data to support a particular idea.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMethodological gap: This highlights the need for new approaches, as existing methods may be inadequate.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTheoretical gap: This arises when there is no robust theory to explain a phenomenon or when existing theories are unsuitable due to discrepancies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eConceptual gap: This is the lack of clarity or consensus regarding key concepts within a field.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePractical gap: This involves extensive theorisation with limited application in the real world.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTemporal gap: This results from a lack of research conducted over a specific period, leaving gaps in understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSpatial gap (contextual gap): This refers to the absence of research in a particular geographical area, which limits the generalizability of findings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePopulation gap (contextual gap): This occurs when a certain group of people is excluded from previous studies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eResearch questions that are novel, innovative methodologies, and distinct theoretical and practical contributions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e] can lead to significant, creative, and impactful research. Only five studies had novel research questions, indicating a low level of originality relating to this indicator in the theses that were reviewed. Novel research questions are crucial to the scholarly impact and significance of doctoral research because they explore new areas, challenge existing frameworks, and provide fresh insights, thus advancing knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. Novel research questions lead to the generation of a significant amount of new data and novel insights [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e]. All studies. All the studies that were reviewed provided new data that contributes new knowledge to the field. Using multiple data collection instruments allows for the gathering of varied data through different approaches, methods, and strategies, resulting in original findings [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR68\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e68\u003c/span\u003e]. Several studies lacked transparency regarding this key originality indicator, as they did not include it as a source of originality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe application of new or significantly altered research methods was limited, as was the exploration of novel research questions. Innovative research methodologies that may reduce the methodological gap can generate new empirical data and insights. That entails the use of new or unconventional research methods, such as mixed methods research, artificial intelligence, virtual reality and biometric feedback in user experience research.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCombining qualitative and quantitative methods in mixed methods research enables researchers to utilise the advantages of both approaches, resulting in a more thorough understanding of complex phenomena [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR70\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e70\u003c/span\u003e]. Technology-based research has gained popularity with the advancement of Web 2.0 technologies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR71\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e71\u003c/span\u003e]. Artificial intelligence can be used to analyse large datasets quickly and accurately and to identify patterns and correlations that might be missed by human researchers [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR72\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e72\u003c/span\u003e]. Virtual reality ethnography can effectively study sensitive topics and hard-to-reach populations by conducting immersive studies in virtual environments [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR73\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e73\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR74\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e74\u003c/span\u003e]. Researchers can interact with people virtually, reducing the conventional obstacles of social stigma and physical presence, which produces more genuine insights. Biometric feedback in user experience research utilises biometric data, such as eye tracking and heart rate monitoring, to improve user experience by providing objective measures of engagement and emotional responses [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR75\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e75\u003c/span\u003e]. This approach represents an innovative research methodology. This method provides a more in-depth understanding of user interactions and emotional reactions by going beyond conventional self-reporting techniques. While a low similarity index that meets acceptable standards of the discipline can indicate originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e], none of the theses in the study acknowledged it as a source of originality for their work.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContributions that build upon or modify existing theoretical perspectives are deemed original [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Some scholars were concerned with the lack of theoretical contributions that are made in the field of information science [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR76\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e76\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR77\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e77\u003c/span\u003e]. The level of originality associated with theoretical contributions was relatively high in the reviewed studies. The originality of a thesis can be enhanced by a clearly defined conceptual framework that incorporates existing theories and addresses the theoretical gap in the field. The theoretical contributions of the reviewed theses were significant; however, most were not transparent as they failed to explicitly state this fact. While the recommendations from several theses may influence policy or professional practices, the studies did not clearly present this as an original contribution. Therefore, the reader is left to interpret the implications. Many PhD candidates describe their perceived originality instead of critically illustrating how their work makes a substantial contribution to the corpus of existing knowledge [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe same shortcoming applied to the conclusions, which were novel and provided new perspectives. A thesis's conclusions, which summarise the research findings and highlight the distinctive contributions to the area, are crucial in demonstrating its uniqueness [3; 1]. The conclusions act as a crucial element that allows the researcher to emphasise the importance and originality of their work, hence enhancing the uniqueness of the thesis [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR78\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e78\u003c/span\u003e]. While all the theses showcased originality in their literature review, the authors failed to mention it as an indicator of originality. Through the discovery of novel concepts, phenomena, or interpretations that were not previously understood or investigated, the literature review adds to originality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR79\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e79\u003c/span\u003e]. In other words, gaps can be identified, and new research topics can be developed with the help of an original literature study. By addressing the implications of their research and elaborating on the significance of filling the identified gaps, doctoral candidates show how their literature offers an original contribution [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR80\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e80\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe reviewed studies showed a remarkable level of originality. It was indeed a decade of excellence. The sources of originality included formulating a novel research question, employing innovative methodologies, developing new theoretical frameworks, or enhancing and refining existing theories. Furthermore, originality was demonstrated by presenting new empirical data, offering fresh insights or findings, proposing practical applications or solutions that have implications for policy and practice, showcasing creativity in the literature review, and drawing original conclusions and implications.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile originality in postgraduate studies is important, it should be emphasised that highly original research is quite rare, and one would be setting their sights too high if they aim for it [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Postgraduate students should avoid trying to develop an entirely new perspective on a topic. It is enough for them to contribute incrementally to the understanding of a phenomenon. An original contribution or an incremental addition to knowledge can be assessed using at least six components from the following checklist derived from the findings of this study and the conceptual framework illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. The studies should also transparently demonstrate how each checklist aspect contributed to its originality.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cul\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverlooked and unexplored research areas\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNovel research questions (uniqueness and relevance of the research problem addressed)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eUse of new or adapted methodologies (innovative methodologies)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOriginality in the literature review (identifies gaps and presents a unique perspective on existing research)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDistinct theoretical contributions including the development of a conceptual model, framework, or theory.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eExtends a theory (builds upon or modifies established theories in the field)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical contribution based on the collection and analysis of data that enhances our understanding of the cognitive field\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOffers new insights or findings\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eProposes practical applications\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecommends contributions that may impact policy or professional practices\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDraws unique interpretations and conclusions from the research, providing new perspectives\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAbsence of plagiarism with a similarity index that falls within an acceptable range, depending on the standards of the discipline.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ul\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLimitations and future research\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe methodology used in this study has limitations. It was not able to establish the factors that contribute to the originality of postgraduate theses in Information Studies, such as institutional support, access to resources, and the role of supervisors. It was not possible to uncover obstacles that students encounter in striving for originality and the strategies they employ to address these challenges. Equally, the methodology used could not determine the role of supervisors and academic committees in fostering and evaluating originality in student research. The variation in originality in the subfields was equally difficult to establish. Future research can focus on these matters and how different institutions compare in terms of the originality of their postgraduate theses in Information Studies, highlighting any notable differences or similarities. This will make the results comparable and contribute to theory about originality in Information Studies theses.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003eHCI: Human\u0026ndash;computer interaction\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLIS: Library and information studies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePhD: Doctor of Philosophy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe contributions of two postgraduate fellows to the coding framework and the anonymous reviewer who provided feedback are acknowledged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePN conceptualised the research, searched for the data, coded the data, and wrote the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe research did not receive any funding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. The study does not involve humans, and it is not a clinical trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInformed consent\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis was a content analysis of the theses that are available in the public domain. There was no need for any informed consent\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eI am a member of the editorial board of \u003cem\u003eDiscover Education\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGelling, L., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez-Borrego, M. A. (2014). Originality in doctoral research. \u003cem\u003eNurse Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, 21(6), pp. 6\u0026ndash;7. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.6.s2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurray, R. (2017). \u003cem\u003eHow to write a thesis\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGill, P., \u0026amp; Dolan, G. (2015). Originality and the PhD: what is it and how can it be demonstrated? \u003cem\u003eNurse Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, 22(6), 11\u0026ndash;15. https://doi.org/10.7748/NR.22.6.11.E1335\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnston, R. (2008). On structuring subjective judgements: originality, significance and rigour in RAE 2008. \u003cem\u003eHigher Education Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 62(1/2), 120\u0026ndash;147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00378.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShibayama, S., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2020). Measuring originality in science. \u003cem\u003eScientometrics\u003c/em\u003e, 122, 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03263-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eS\u0026aacute;nchez, I. R., Mantec\u0026oacute;n, A., Williamsh, A. M., Makkonen, T., \u0026amp; Kim, Y. R. (2022). Originality: the holy grail of tourism research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Travel Research, \u003c/em\u003e61(6), 1219-1232. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211033343\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKearns, H. \u0026amp; Finn, J. (2017). \u003cem\u003eSupervising PhD students: a practical guide and toolkit\u003c/em\u003e. Thinkwell.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, A., Jones, M. G., Jonsson, R., Harris, R. A., \u0026amp; Mulvany, M. J. (2019). A comparison of doctoral training in biomedicine and medicine for some UK and Scandinavian graduate programmes: learning from each other. \u003cem\u003eFEBS Open Bio\u003c/em\u003e, 9(5), 830\u0026ndash;839. https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.12629\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZulfikar, T., Elismawati, E., \u0026amp; Yuhardi, Y. (2014). Theses originality: an initial effort to examine students\u0026rsquo; final projects\u003cem\u003e. Al-Ta Lim Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 21(2), 93\u0026ndash;103. https://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v21i2.86\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDirk, L. (1999). A measure of originality: the elements of science. \u003cem\u003eSocial Studies of Science\u003c/em\u003e, 29(5), 765\u0026ndash;776. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631299029005004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDunleavy, P. (2003). \u003cem\u003eAuthoring a PhD: how to plan, draft, write and finish a doctoral thesis or dissertation\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave Macmillan.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaptistaa, A., Frickb, L., Holleyc, K., Remmikd, M., \u0026amp; Tesche, J. (2015). The doctorate as an original contribution to knowledge: considering relationships between originality, creativity, and innovation. \u003cem\u003eFrontline Learning Research\u003c/em\u003e, 3(3), 55 \u0026ndash; 67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemirtas, I., Gedik, K., Gedik, N., \u0026amp; Avdan, Z. Y. (2023). On the concept of originality in scientific studies. \u003cem\u003eY\u0026uuml;ksek\u0026ouml;ğretim Dergisi\u003c/em\u003e, 13(1), 129\u0026ndash;142. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.23.1169711\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEdwards M. (2014). What does originality in research mean? A student\u0026apos;s perspective. \u003cem\u003eNurse Researcher\u003c/em\u003e, 21(6), 8\u0026ndash;11. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.6.8.e1254\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBadley, G. (2009). Publish and be doctor‐rated: the PhD by published work. \u003cem\u003eQuality Assurance in Education\u003c/em\u003e, 17(4), 331\u0026ndash;342. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880910992313\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClarke, G., \u0026amp; Lunt, I. (2014). The concept of \u0026lsquo;originality\u0026rsquo; in the PhD: how is it interpreted by examiners? \u003cem\u003eAssessment \u0026amp; Evaluation in Higher Education\u003c/em\u003e, 39(7), 803\u0026ndash;820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.870970\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGuetzkow, J., Lamont, M., \u0026amp; Mallard, G. (2004). What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? \u003cem\u003eAmerican Sociological Review\u003c/em\u003e, 69(2), 190\u0026ndash;212. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900203\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCryer, P. (2006). \u003cem\u003eThe research student\u0026rsquo;s guide to success\u003c/em\u003e. (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMubazi, J. K. (2019). Quality criteria of a research output. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Biomedical Science \u0026amp; Research\u003c/em\u003e, 3(2), 265\u0026ndash;266. https://doi.org/10.34297/AJBSR.2019.03.000674\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark, C. (2005). New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Higher Education Policy and Management\u003c/em\u003e, 27(2), 189\u0026ndash;207.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVagarinho, J. P. (2019). How to identify originality in a scientific manuscript or in a doctoral thesis? \u003cem\u003eEducar em Revista\u003c/em\u003e, 35(73). https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-4060.58892 (Original in Portuguese).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlaxter, L., Hughes, C., \u0026amp; Tight, M. (2006). \u003cem\u003eHow to research\u003c/em\u003e. Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePhillips, E. M., Pugh, D. S., \u0026amp; Johnson, C. (2015). \u003cem\u003eHow to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors\u003c/em\u003e. 6th edition. Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlajami, A. (2020). Beyond originality in scientific research: considering relations among originality, novelty, and ecological thinking. \u003cem\u003eThinking Skills and Creativity\u003c/em\u003e, 38, 100723. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TSC.2020.100723\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlade-Wright, R. E. (2017). New insights effectively shared: originality and new knowledge in Creative Arts postgraduate degrees. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 17(2), 89\u0026ndash;98. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-04-2016-0023\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePinto, M. da G. L. C. (2016). Academic writing: a game of forces between the generation of ideas and their implementation. \u003cem\u003eSign\u003c/em\u003e, 41 (Special), 53-71. https://doi.org/10.17058/signo.v1i1.7325 (Original in Portuguese)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDaraban, N.-V. (2024). Academic puzzle - The relationship between originality, plagiarism and similarity in the contents of doctoral theses. \u003cem\u003eChallenges of the Knowledge Society\u003c/em\u003e, 17(1), 505\u0026ndash;514.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuteu, C. (2022). The assessment of originality in academic research. \u003cem\u003eStudia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Musica\u003c/em\u003e, 67(1):165\u0026ndash;173. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbmusica.2022.1.11\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWordvice HJ. (2024). Masters thesis vs. PhD dissertation: key differences. Retrieved on 4 June 2025 from https://blog.wordvice.com/dissertation-vs-thesis-key-differences/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStevens, G. (2025). PhD thesis vs. masters dissertation: making the transition. Retrieved on 4 June 2025 from https://academic-writing.uk/phd-thesis-vs-masters-dissertation/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsubiaro, T. V., \u0026amp; Badmus, O. M. (2020). Collaboration clusters, interdisciplinarity, scope and subject classification of library and information science research from Africa: An analysis of Web of Science publications from 1996 to 2015. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Librarianship and Information Science\u003c/em\u003e, 52 (4), 1169\u0026ndash;85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620907958.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBawden, D. \u0026amp; Robinson, L. (2016). Library and information science. In K.B. Jensen, E.W. Rothenbuhler, J.D. Pooley \u0026amp; R.T. Craig (eds). \u003cem\u003eThe International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect113\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgulube, P. \u0026amp; Ukwoma, S. C. (2021). Prevalence of methodological transparency in the use of mixed methods research in library and information science research in South Africa and Nigeria, 2009\u0026ndash;2015. \u003cem\u003eLibrary \u0026amp; Information Science Research\u003c/em\u003e, 43(4), 101124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2021.101124\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRooman, U. \u0026amp; Rahaman, M. (2024). Romanticism revisited: exploring the intersection of romanticism with enlightenment and transcendentalism through the lens of the neoclassicism. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 8(4), 1628-1635. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.804217\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlăveanu, V. P. (2020). A sociocultural theory of creativity: bridging the social, the material, and the psychological. \u003cem\u003eReview of General Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 24(4), 335-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268020961763 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAmabile, T. M. (2013). Componential theory of creativity. In E H. Kessler (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eEncyclopedia of management theory\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 134\u0026ndash;139). Sage http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452276090.n42\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHennessey, B. A. (2015). Creative behavior, motivation, environment and culture: the building of a systems model. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Creative Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, 49(3), 194\u0026ndash;210. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOCB.97\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgulube, P. \u0026amp; Mosha, N.F. (2023). Transparency in the use of theoretical frameworks for the advancement of knowledge in core library and information science journals: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eAfrican Journal of Library, Archives and Information Science\u003c/em\u003e, 33(2), 129\u0026ndash;146. https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/ajlais.v33i2.2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNcube, M. M., \u0026amp; Ngulube, P. (2025). Mapping theoretical approaches: a scoping review of data analytics in higher education. \u003cem\u003eDiscover Education\u003c/em\u003e, 4, 201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-025-00647-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlucker, J. A. (2017). \u003cem\u003eCreativity and innovation: theory, research, and practice\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233930\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSibomana, E. (2016). Daring to be different: a postgraduate perspective on originality. postgraduate study in South Africa- surviving and succeeding. In L. Frick, C. Motshoane, C. McMaster \u0026amp; C. Murphy (Eds). \u003cem\u003ePostgraduate study in South Africa (pp. 205-\u003c/em\u003e. SUN PRESS https://doi.org/10.18820/9781928357247/18\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBriggs, J. G. (2016). Grappling with originality and grounding in qualitative data analysis. In J. McKinley \u0026amp; H. Rose(Eds.), \u003cem\u003eDoing research in Applied Linguistics: realities, dilemmas, and solutions\u003c/em\u003e, (pp. 182\u0026ndash;191). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315389608-17\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKawamoto, M., Koizumi, M., \u0026amp; Yoshikane, F. (2023). Proposal of a qualitative content analysis process for a solo researcher. \u003cem\u003eLibri\u003c/em\u003e, 73(2), 139\u0026ndash;152. https://doi.org/10.1515/libri-2022-0068\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePınar, Y., G\u0026uuml;r, D., Pınar, N. K., Demir, K., Iltar, E. K., Song\u0026ouml;ren, S. A., \u0026amp; \u0026Ouml;zenici, S. (2023). A comparative study of postgraduate theses in pedagogy and preschool education in Austria and Turkey. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 13:1051923. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1051923\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarpinski, C., Vieira, K. R., \u0026amp; Guerner, A. de H. V. (2021). Teaching and research of epistemology in stricto sensu graduate programs in the area of Information Science in Brazil. \u003cem\u003eIbero-American Journal of Information Science\u003c/em\u003e, 14(3), 844\u0026ndash;865. https://doi.org/10.26512/rici.v14.n3.2021.38880 (Original in Portuguese).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLibrary and Information Services. (2025). Theses and dissertations (Information Science). Retrieved on 3 June from https://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/2802\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaria-Sch\u0026uuml;tzer, D., Surita, F. G., Alves, V. L. P., Bastos, R. A., Campos, C. J. G., \u0026amp; Turato, E. R. (2021). Seven steps for qualitative treatment in health research: the clinical-qualitative content analysis. \u003cem\u003eCiencia \u0026amp; Saude Coletiva\u003c/em\u003e, 26(1), 265\u0026ndash;274. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020261.07622019\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., \u0026amp; Salda\u0026ntilde;a, J. (2020). \u003cem\u003eQualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. \u003cem\u003eBiochemia Medica\u003c/em\u003e, 22(3), 276\u0026ndash;282.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, C.-S., \u0026amp; Jeng, W. (2017). Using content analysis in LIS research: experiences with coding schemes construction and reliability measures. \u003cem\u003eQualitative and\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eQuantitative Methods in Libraries(QQML)\u003c/em\u003e, 4(1), 87\u0026ndash;95. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNgulube, P. 2023. Improving the quality of reporting findings using computer data analysis applications in educational research in context. \u003cem\u003eHeliyon Education\u003c/em\u003e, 9(9), e19683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19683\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePhillips, E. M. \u0026amp; Pugh, D. S. (2005). \u003cem\u003eHow to get a PhD. A handbook for students and their supervisors\u003c/em\u003e. 4th edition. Open University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiles, D. A. (2017). A taxonomy of research gaps: Identifying and defining the seven research gaps. In \u003cem\u003eDoctoral student workshop: finding research gaps-research methods and strategies\u003c/em\u003e, Dallas, Texas (pp. 1-15).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrapido, D. (2015). How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities. \u003cem\u003eResearch Policy\u003c/em\u003e, 44, 1488\u0026ndash;1500.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGlade-Wright, R. E, \u0026amp; A. Smyth, E. A. (2023). Metaphors for doctoral research: Fundamental tenets and creative courage. \u003cem\u003eTEXT: Journal of Writing and Writing Courses\u003c/em\u003e, 27(1), 1\u0026ndash;14. https://doi.org/10.52086/001c.75235\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZul, M. (2024). 10 Reasons why citations are important. Retrieved on 24 June 2025 from https://publishingstate.com/10-reasons-why-citations-are-important/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAsubiaro, T. V., \u0026amp; Onaolapo, S. (2023). A comparative study of the coverage of African journals in Web of Science, Scopus, and CrossRef. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, 74(7), 745\u0026ndash;758. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24758\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingh, V.K., Singh, P., Karmakar, M. et al. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. \u003cem\u003eScientometrics\u003c/em\u003e, 126, 5113\u0026ndash;5142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03948-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHobohm, H.-C. (2024). Information behaviour. In P. Heisig (ed.), \u003cem\u003eHandbook on information sciences\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 98\u0026ndash;116). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035343706.00014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHassan, M. (2024). Research gap \u0026ndash; Types, examples and how to identify. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://researchmethod.net/research-gap/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNacke, L. (2023). The 7 research gaps. \u003cem\u003eWrite Insight Newsletter\u003c/em\u003e, Jun 20. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://lennartnacke.com/the-7-research-gaps/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, K. A., Saldanha, I. J., \u0026amp; McKoy, N. A. (2011). Development of a framework to identify research gaps from systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, 64(12), 1325\u0026ndash;1330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.06.009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCottrell, S.(2014). \u003cem\u003eDissertations and project reports: A step by step guide\u003c/em\u003e. Palgrave MacMillan. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaheen, M. (2021). The concept of originality in academic research of engineering. \u003cem\u003eEducation Research International\u003c/em\u003e, 9462201. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9462201\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLovitts, B. \u0026amp; Wert, E. (2009). \u003cem\u003eDeveloping quality dissertations in the social sciences: a graduate student\u0026apos;s guide to achieving excellence\u003c/em\u003e. Stylus Publishing.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGill, P. (Academic). (2018). Originality in doctoral research: what is it and how can it be demonstrated? [Video]. \u003cem\u003eSage Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526442413\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Saraf, E., \u0026amp; Rautenbach, E. (2025). The research gap (literature gap): How to find the elusive research gap \u0026ndash; with practical examples. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://gradcoach.com/research-gap/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBozward, D. (2024). Demonstrating originality in your PhD proposal. Retrieved on 25 June 2025 from https://david.bozward.com/2024/07/demonstrating-originality-in-your-phd-proposal/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeuman, W. L. (2021). \u003cem\u003eSocial research methods: quantitative and qualitative approaches\u003c/em\u003e. 8th ed. Pearson.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaxwell, J. A. (2022). Integration in mixed methods research: An alternative perspective. In J. H. Hitchcock \u0026amp; A. J. Onwuegbuzie (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 86\u0026ndash;93). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429432828-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eConnaway, L. S., \u0026amp; Powell, R. R. (2010). \u003cem\u003eBasic research methods for librarians\u003c/em\u003e. 5th ed. Libraries Unlimited.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNeetha, S. S., Sahoo, G. S., Karthigaikuar, P., Jayasudha, S., Shinde, G. R., \u0026amp; Lone, Z. A. (2024). Exploring the role of automated reasoning in big data analysis. 1\u0026ndash;6. \u003cem\u003e15th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT)\u003c/em\u003e, Kamand, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/icccnt61001.2024.10725336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCeuterick, M., \u0026amp; Ingraham, C. (2021). Immersive storytelling and affective ethnography in virtual reality. \u003cem\u003eThe Review of Communication\u003c/em\u003e, 21(1), 9\u0026ndash;22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2021.1881610\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMesseri, L. (2022). Ethnography of/and virtual reality. In E. Costa, P. G. Lange, N. Haynes \u0026amp; J. Sinanan, (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eThe Routledge companion to media anthropology\u003c/em\u003e, (pp. 570\u0026ndash;580). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003175605-55\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSingla, D., \u0026amp; Verma, (2023). Machine and deep learning in biometric authentication: a review. \u003cem\u003e2023 International Conference on Advancement in Computation \u0026amp; Computer Technologies (InCACCT)\u003c/em\u003e, Gharuan, India, pp. 22-26, https://doi.org/10.1109/InCACCT57535.2023.10141692.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCibangu, S. K. (2013). A memo of qualitative research for information science: toward theory construction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Documentation\u003c/em\u003e, 69(2), 194\u0026ndash;213.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVakkari, P. (2008). Trends and approaches in information behaviour research. \u003cem\u003eInformation Research,\u003c/em\u003e 13(4). Retrieved on 5 June 2025 from https://informationr.net/ir/13-4/paper361.html \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrozco-Orozco, J. Z. (2023). Conclusions and proposals as fundamental part of the thesis research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of University Policies,\u003c/em\u003e 7-17:12-25. https://doi.org/10.35429/JUP.2023.17.7.12.25\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMore, H. (2024).Originality: a criteria of a good research. Retrieved on 28 June 2025 from https://thelegalquotient.com/research-methodology/originality-a-criteria-of-a-good-research/4489/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNygaard, L. P., \u0026amp; Solli, K. (2021). \u003cem\u003eStrategies for writing a thesis by publication in the social sciences and humanities\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Innovation, excellence, creativity, novelty, significant contribution, uniqueness in research, originality in research, genuineness of research, scientific value","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eOriginality in postgraduate education is essential because it serves as a foundation for excellence and innovation. Completing a thesis is a requirement for graduating from any academic institution. For a thesis to be accepted, it must make a valuable contribution to the existing body of knowledge. However, many PhD candidates encounter challenges in writing sound theses that demonstrate academic integrity and a high level of originality. Originality can involve generating new insights, theories, or connections between previously unrelated sources. Using qualitative content analysis of 84 PhD theses in Information Studies at an academic institution in Africa, this study explored how originality is defined and articulated in that context. The findings show that the theses reviewed demonstrate a high degree of originality, highlighting their cognitive excellence. It is recommended that PhD-level research should demonstrate a high degree of originality, achieving more than fifty per cent in all attributes that reflect originality as outlined by various scholars and the conceptual framework that guided this study. Although the findings from this study cannot be generalised to all PhD studies and disciplines, it forms a sound theoretical basis for understanding the subject of originality in postgraduate education. The discussion and checklist for originality will benefit postgraduates, supervisors, and examiners of research theses.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Exploring Originality in Postgraduate Education in Context: A Decade of Academic Excellence","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-22 08:58:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7004169/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-06T13:18:15+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-02T14:03:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"327263648688969356209288928845932482084","date":"2025-09-27T23:58:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"74087663861672751520918233670788430436","date":"2025-09-26T11:10:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"70333209771282299970535320318833592759","date":"2025-09-22T23:04:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-19T03:14:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"82480511276191463405684824613230471969","date":"2025-09-19T03:04:59+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-14T19:36:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-07T07:27:38+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-07-16T09:54:10+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Education","date":"2025-07-16T08:49:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"diedu","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Education](https://www.springer.com/journal/44217)","snPcode":"44217","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/44217/3","title":"Discover Education","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"949e35f0-c213-49be-a125-4dcb6b59be02","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 22nd, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-17T18:08:17+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-22 08:58:34","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7004169","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7004169","identity":"rs-7004169","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}