Once you clarify the contribution and novelty of your paper, and ensure your methods are sound, your paper it will be accepted. (Well done to one of my PhDs for having their first paper accepted!) Many of my community members ask what is the secret to having my papers accepted 1-2 peer review rounds usually at the first journal I submit to. But there is no secret. All you have to do is this: 1. Write down the what unique knowledge your work adds to your research field 2. Check if your literature review and results support your claims 3. Ask co-authors if they understood it and if the entire paper supports your claims That’s it. Lack of novelty is the main reason why papers are rejected. Don’t let this happen to you. Spend that extra week making sure it’s easy to understand. Feel free to share your wins in this community!

Season’s greetings, community. I’m offline for a few days with family, but I’ll be back soon - thank you for all your support this year.

As above, always curious to learn what people are using these days. My AI stack is as follows: - Perplexity for research (pro version, can get educational discount!) - ResearchRabbit for paper discovery - Gemini Nano Banana for graphs - Grammarly for grammar & language I tend not to use AI for writing stuff. I just feel more connected to my work by writing myself and I learn more by processing ideas myself. What about you?

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