Dec '25 • Publishing
New article published - how to explain novelty in your paper
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.
Which assumptions need updating.
Where the next person should pick up the conversation.
If your final section could have been written before you ran the study, you are not explaining novelty.
Your research can be novel, but invisible.
Your job is to make the originality impossible to miss.
Full article available here:
13
6 comments
New article published - how to explain novelty in your paper
powered by
skool.com/research-career-club-8446
Become 'go-to' research expert by delivering novel research; engaging outside academia; and building profile to amplify impact | Created by Prof Hanak
Suggested communities
Powered by