For my understand the reviewers comment, it means our work add nothing new to the body of knowledge even, if we get better result than the state-of-the-arts work.
The reviewers believe our work is just an application of an existence literature. while many published work they do integration + per-existence work to enhance the result, we use per-processing + per-existence work to do the same. We get rejected meanwhile others get accepted.
What should be done to resolve such an issue?
Well, this depends on your perception of the novelity of your paper. Soemtimes the reviewers can not see everything; may be you discussed a new parameter or two that were not investigated before. If so, you should make them appear as primary points in the manuscript and write a cover letter that highlights the aspects of novelity to the editor.
If you, yourself, think the paper contains nothing novel, and you still want to publish it, you can try an open access journal (if you or university can afford it) or a low-impact journal.
Hi Mohammad,
A rejection is not the end of the world. If I were you, I would try to learn from the reviewers' comments, make the necessary changes, and re-submit to the same or different journal. However, if you don't understand the deep reason for the rejection, re-submission may not do. When other people get accepted, this is incentive enough for you to say to yourself "I can also get accepted."
I don't know about science and technology, but research is research. Originality is important. An article cannot simply be a re-hashing of the literature. In other words, to be original, there is need to have a view of what's going on in your field, and build on what others may have done.
Good luck
The reviewer might or might not be correct. Do the request the same Editor to reconsider their decision. Try elsewhere. There must be plenty of options.
Best of luck.
May be the novelty is not great as purported by the reviewers. Yet, I think you can enhance it via diligent discussion of the results with existing studies in the field of research while showing clearly, your humble contribution to knowledge (novelty).
I think you should consider the comments of the reviewer & re-write your manuscript in a way that highlights the novelty & makes it stand. Good luck. Be optimistic, it is somehow a matter of luck.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher