You’re not getting rejected because your results and methods are not interesting. You’re getting rejected because your novelty is unclear (Let’s fix that!) Novelty is not: - “No one has done exactly this before.” - “We used a slightly different parameter.” - “We added more data to an old idea.” Novelty is ONE clear, new thing in your work. - New problem. - New solution. - New combination. - New insight. If you can’t say it in one sentence, you don’t have it yet. From my experience, there are 3 types of novelty that get you published 1. New solution → Old problem “We apply X (new method/technology) to improve Y (known problem).” 2. Old solution → New problem “We take X (known method/technology) into Y (new context/field).” 3. New insight → Known area “We show something counterintuitive / previously unquantified about X.” If your paper is: Old solution → Old problem → “with more data” That’s not novelty. That’s a lab report. Make sure that you clearly articulate the novelty of your work in abstract & introduction. So: - Don’t hide your novelty in the discussion. - Don’t wrap it in 3 paragraphs of “In recent years…” - Don’t make them dig for it. Put it front and centre, particularly in: - Last paragraph of your intro - Core state,emt of your abstract - First/second paragraph of your cover letter Your paper doesn’t need 20 “contributions”. It needs ONE unforgettable novelty statement. Write that first. Then write your paper around it.

It’s been an unusually busy break for me. To the extent I haven’t had time to sit down and plan for 2026. But if I were to list just 2 priorities it would be this: 1. Grow this community into number #1 research community (we need to be ambitious) 2. Develop training materials and deliver at least 2 sessions (one training per quarter; 2 for this community; 2 relevant to my professional capacity) That’s it - beyond my academic responsibilities. How about you? What do you plan this year? P.S. We run paper writing training this Friday. Will you be there?

Many of you indicated when joining the community that you would like to network, share research and build collaborations. Would you be keen to share your research through community seminars? You can use this to: - share your reserach to seek collaborations - practice before conference presentation - practice before viva Let me know.

Last week, I reviewed 3 papers in a row that all had the same problem: Good data. Solid methods. No visible novelty. Not because the work wasn’t original, but because the authors assumed the originality would somehow “speak for itself”. It never does. If reviewers and editors need 20 minutes to guess what is new about your paper, they will almost always conclude: “Lack of novelty. Reject.” Here is a simple structure you can use to fix this in your next manuscript: 1. One-sentence contribution (yes, just one) If you cannot explain your contribution in one sentence, the reviewer will not do it for you. Ask yourself: “What does this paper do that no published paper has already done?” Write that sentence. Put a version of it in the abstract and in the last paragraph of the introduction. 2. Make the gap painfully clear Don’t write: “Few studies have examined X.” Write something like: What we think we know. What we don’t know (exactly what is missing, wrong, or unclear). Why this gap is a problem for the field. If the gap is vague, your contribution will look vague. 3. Name the type of novelty Most early-career researchers actually have one of these: Contextual: Testing known theory in a new context or population. Methodological: Using a new data source or technique that reveals what others could not see. Conceptual: Clarifying, extending, or slightly challenging an existing idea. Say which one you are doing and show how. 4. Use contribution language, not “what we did” language Weak: “We analyzed 500 surveys and ran regressions.” Stronger: “We show that the X–Y relationship reverses in setting Z, which existing theory does not predict. This refines how we understand X in volatile environments.” Same work. Different framing. Completely different response from reviewers. 5. Echo the novelty again in the Discussion The Discussion is not just “here are the results again”. It is where you say, clearly: What changes for the field because of your findings.

I've just scheduled the PWW session for the 9th January 2026. Save it to your calendars and tell your friends. https://www.skool.com/research-career-club-8446/calendar?calDate=1768228275&eid=91511d30f18a41ed9c9100cc683bb28a#:~:text=https%3A//www.skool.com/live/Rmsy7DmvkPN