This paper presents few additions to our existing system for summarizing multiple scientific research papers published at various recognized journals, conferences and workshops informing latest research developments.This modified system is more useful as compare to previous oneguiding many researchers or research scholars looking for innovative contributions in a specific field of research. The similarity in contents and repeated relevant information from multiple domain specific scientific articles are reduced and optimized by novel research term analysis method. Two new innovative categories of Research Relevant Novelty [RRN] terms, uniqueness and difference from previous ideas (like and contrast) and research continuations of earlier/existing work (continuation/novel) are added to existing system. This modified version minimizes information overload problem present in this online era by providing most condensed, accurate, optimized and relevant contents from multiple scientific papers through the existing categoriessuch as research purpose (aim), approach & methodology used (method), and results & discussions (outcome).This up gradation results in a effective and efficient strategy for minimizing scholars efforts in reading all scientific papers completely to get desired information

1. Angrosh, M. A., Stephen Cranefield, and Nigel Stanger (2010), Context identification of sentences in related work sections using a conditional random field: towards intelligent digital libraries. In JCDL’10: Proceedings of the 10th annual joint conferenceon Digital libraries, pages 293–302, ACM.
2. Barzilay, R., McKeown, K., &Elhadad, M. (1999). Information fusion in the context of multi-document summarization. In Proc. of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Assoc. of Computational Linguistics.
3. Baxendale, P (1958), Machine-made index for technical literature - an experiment. IBM Journal of Research Development, 2(4):354{361.
4. D. Zajic, B. J. Dorr, J. Lin, R. Schwartz. (2007) “Multi-candidate reduction: Sentence compression as a tool for document summarization tasks”. Inf. Process. Manage., vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1549-1570.
5. Dragomir R. Radev, Hongyan Jing, Ma?gorzataSty_s, Daniel Tam, (2004) Centroid-based summarization of multiple documents, Information Processing and Management, 919–938.
6. Edmundson, H. P (1969), New methods in automatic extracting. Journal of the ACM, 16(2):264-285.
7. Goldstainet. al. and Carbonell, (1998), The Use of MMR, Diversity Based Re-ranking for reordering documents and producing summaries. In proceedings of SIGIR 1998, Melbourne, Australia .p335-336.
8. J.D. Schlesinger, D.P. O’leary, and J. M. Conroy, (2010), “Arabic/English Multi-document Summarization with CLASSY – The Past and the Future”. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 4919, pp. 568-581.
9. Jing, Hongyan, Regina Barzilay, Kathleen R. McKeown, and Michael Elhadad(1998), Summarization evaluation methods: Experiments and analysis. Working Notes ofthe AAAI Spring Symposium on IntelligentText Summarization, pages 60–68.
10. Lin, Chin-Yew and Eduard Hovy (2003), Automatic Evaluation of Summaries Using N-gram Co-Occurrence Statistics, Proceedings of the Human Technology Conference (HLTNAACL-2003), Edmonton, Canada.
11. Luhn. H.P. (1958), “The Automatic Creation of Literature Abstracts”. IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 159-165.
12. Mani and M. T. Maybury, (1999) “Introduction”. In Advances in Automatic Text Summarization, I. Mani and M.T. Maybury, Eds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Inderjeet MANI,Summarization Evaluation: An Overview,The MITRE Corporation, W640.
14. McKeown, Kathleen R. and Radev (1995), Generating summaries of multiple News Articles. In ACM-RDIR, SIGIR’95, WA.
15. Mei, Qiaozhu and ChengXiangZhai(2008), Generating impact-based summaries for scientific literature. In Proceedings of ACL ’08, pages 816–824.
16. Mohammad, Saif, Bonnie Dorr,Melissa Egan, Ahmed Hassan, PradeepMuthukrishan, VahedQazvinian, DragomirRadev, and David Zajic (2009), Using citations to generate surveys of scientific paradigms.InNAACL 2009, pages 584–592.
17. Nallapati, R. M., A. Ahmed, E. P. Xing, and W. W. Cohen (2008), Joint latent topic models for text and citations. In Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDDInternational Conference on Knowledge Discoveryin Data and Data Mining, pages 542–550.
18. Nakov, A. S. Schwartz, and M. Hearst (2004),Citances: Citation sentences for semantic analysis of bioscience text. InProceedings of the SIGIR’04 workshop on Search and Discovery in Bioinformatics.
19. S. Teufel and M. Moens (2002), “Summarizing scientific articles: experiments with relevance and rhetorical status,” Comput. Linguist. vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 409-445.
20. Salton, G. and Buckley, C. (1987), Term weighting approaches in automatic text retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 24(5), 513-523.
21. S. Ou, C.S. Khoo, and D.H. Goh (2008), “Design and development of a concept-based multi-document summarization system for research abstracts,” J. Inf. Sci., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 308-326.
22. S. Ou, Khoo, C. &Goh, D(2007), Automatic multi-document summarization of research abstracts: design and user evaluation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), 58(10). Pp. 1-17.
23. Schwartz and Marti Hearst (2006), Summarizing Key Concepts using Citation Sentences Proceedings of the BioNLP Workshop on Linking Natural Language Processing and Biology at HLT-NAACL 06, pages 134–135,New York City, Association for Computational Linguistics
24. Spark-Jones, K. and J. R. Galliers (1995), Evaluating Natural Language Processing Systems: An Analysis and Review. Number 1083, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer.
25. SunitaPatil,SunitaMahajan (2011), Summarizing Domain Specific MultipleReseach Papers Using Research Relevant Novelty selected at ICDM’11, Ghaziabad, India.
26. Teufel, Simone, AdvaithSiddharthan, and Colin Batchelor (2009), Towards domain-independent argumentative zoning: Evidence from chemistry and computational linguistics. In Proceedings of Conference on Empirical Methods in NaturalLanguage Processing, pages 1493–1502, Singapore, ACL.
27. Teufel Simone and Marc Moens (2000), What’s yours and what’s mine: Determining intellectual attribution in scientific text. In Proceedings of the JointSIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing and Very LargeCorpora.
28. Teufel, (1999), ‘Argumentative Zoning: Information Extraction from Scientific Text’.
29. T. He, W. Shao, H. Xiao, and P. Hu (2007), “The Implementation of a Query-Directed Multi-document Summarization System,” in Proceedings of the Sixth international Conference on Advanced Language Processing and Web information Technology, pp. 105-110.
30. R. Feldman and J. Sanger ( 2006)The Text Mining Handbook: Advanced Approaches to Analyzing Unstructured Data. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31. Qazvinian, Vahed and Dragomir R. Radev (2008), Scientific paper summarization using citation summary networks. In Proceedings of International Conferenceon Computational Linguistics (COLING), pages 689–696, Manchester, UK.
32. vanRijsbergen, CornelisJoost (1979), Information Retrieval. Butterworth, London, second edition.

summarization optimization research relevant novelty scientific research papers