2

I have been told by the editor that the paper does not have original contribution to literature development. However the framework is derived from the past literature with complete citations and acknowledgements. There is no plagiarism. The context of study, place and framework is new. I am unable to understand how to write the literature convincingly that it's a original contribution.

P.S.: I don't know anyone who would like to see the paper and provide suggestions for improvement.

  • 4
    My impression is that the editor is saying your paper doesn't advance sufficiently beyond the previously existing literature, but that your understanding of the editor's message is that you're somehow mishandling the treatment of existing literature. The fact that you're not mishandling it (that you're providing complete citations, etc.) refutes what you think the editor meant, but not what I think the editor meant. – Andreas Blass Apr 24 at 3:42
1

PS: I don't know anyone who would like to see the paper and provide suggestions for improvement.

I'm afriad this is your biggest problem, and somewhat of a red flag. Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? Do you have a research advisor who is active in your field? Why is there no one who can read it? It sounds like either:

  • This is independent work that you are doing as a student without a mentor, or

  • You are working in a very isolated program without feedback from professors and mentors.

Either way, this is a bad sign. If there is no one to read the paper and provide suggestions, it is very unlikely that you will be able publish successfully. It is just very difficult to produce a publication-worthy paper without mentorship, and more generally, feedback on what you are doing.

I have been told by the editor that the paper does not have original contribution to literature development.

This sounds to me like a generic message that just avoids saying exactly what is wrong with your paper. For example, perhaps the editor desk-rejected your paper because they didn't feel it met the standard of quality for a good academic contribution. It is hard for us to tell without further context. Keep in mind that what counts as an "original contribution" does vary a lot by subfield, but your problem might be something else entirely.

However the framework is derived from the past literature with complete citations and acknowledgements. There is no plagiarism.

This is necessary but not sufficient for your paper to be an original contribution.

The context of study, place and framework is new.

It sounds like it is new in your judgment, but not in the editor's judgment.

I am unable to understand how to write the literature convincingly that it's a original contribution.

It's not just writing the literature (related work), but structuring the entire paper, and perhaps doing the research itself. Ultimately, you will not be able to proceed without feedback from an established professor who can give you good advice.

| improve this answer | |
  • I tried to connect with some professors in the field requesting their feedback on the paper. But it seems people are just very busy or uninterested in providing feedback or time. – sonal Apr 24 at 2:47
0

Very likely this has been done before, either exactly or nearly exactly, and you simply are unaware of it.

If you’re keen to argue your point, start by politely asking the editor if she or he could provide you with citation details of works duplicated by your manuscript as you are obviously interested in the topic.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.