Q: What are the differences between a research gap and research novelty?
I received comments from a journal reviewer emphasizing I need to show novelty in the Introduction and Discussion sections of my manuscript. What does this mean? And how can I tell the difference between a research gap and research novelty?
Dear Author,
Thank you very much for this pertinent question.
There is a very fine between research gap and research novelty, though the two are interlinked. Research gap mainly refers to the gap in literature regarding the subject you are studying (the easiest way to identify this is by asking the question what is not known/has not been studied so far about the topic). Your reserach novelty is based on the gap identified. For example: if the gap identfied is "anticancer effects of XYZ have not been studied in an animal model or the mechanism of action is unknown", then this becomes your research novelty as well provided your study is based along the same lines. Research novelty should indicate whats unique about your study/stdy findings. When the revieewer says that the introduction and discussion section should present the novelty, it simply means to highlight how your study is different from the other similar ones already published and how exactly will your study findings help in furthering the research in the field.
Answer: It means that the reviewer is asking you to discuss where your research stands in the present literature. This is commonly known as "literature review". The main aim of the Introduction section is to convince the reviewer that why your paper is significant and what are the new findings of your paper. Unfortunately from the comments of the reviewer, it feels that your paper has failed to address that issue. I would suggest you to sit down with the paper and think calmly that what is the motivation for you to write the paper. Then jot them down and then put it in your own words. Once it is done, I feel your paper is ready to be submitted.
