This is the purpose of reviewers who review research before publishing. The reviewers are specialists in a given field of knowledge and examine, among other things, whether the scientific text included in the publication is included in the scientific novelties, whether there are new theories, new data, or anything new for scientific knowledge.
This is the purpose of reviewers who review research before publishing. The reviewers are specialists in a given field of knowledge and examine, among other things, whether the scientific text included in the publication is included in the scientific novelties, whether there are new theories, new data, or anything new for scientific knowledge.
Novelty in a study speaks for itself and leads to a curiousity even while reading the title of the research paper. Further reviewer has to use her acumen to judge methodology etc.
Authors and reviewers need to have expertise in the subject of the paper, thus they would be expected to be conversant with the current state of knowledge in a particular field.
It is helpful for the authors to consider (and some journals require) summarizing the following in a panel within your paper:
a. The evidence before this study (based on your review of the literature)
b. What the study adds the the evidence
c. The implications of the new knowledge
See an example here: Article Predictors of uptake of eye examination in people living wit...
It is unfortunate that many claims of novelty, in research articles, are untrue. Most of the old experienced scientists are to blame for not speaking out more frankly. Some of them may be excused "for safety & security reasons".
There are some reviewers who do not shoulder their duties appropriately. I admire those reviewers who take time to turn every stone in order to find the truth even if it is bitter. A research article cannot be reviewed during an hour train journey between cities (X) & (Y) even if the reviewer is a genius person.