Responding to novelty and scope objections

Objections about novelty, significance and scope behave unlike objections about rigour. A rigour comment says something is wrong and can be fixed. A significance comment says the work is sound and not important enough, which is a judgement about value against a venue’s threshold — and that threshold belongs to the venue rather than to the paper.

That difference decides your options. You cannot correct a judgement, but you can change what it is a judgement about — by reframing what the paper claims to contribute, or by moving it to a venue with a different threshold.

The separation is not an authorial convenience. eLife publishes a fixed assessment vocabulary that rates significance of findings on one scale — landmark, fundamental, important, valuable, useful — and strength of evidence on a second, independent scale: exceptional, compelling, convincing, solid, incomplete, inadequate. A manuscript can be rated “solid” on evidence and “useful” on significance at the same time, and neither word is a defect report.

The objections

Three comments make up almost all of the significance family, and each has a different first move.

• Reviewer says the work is incremental — often a framing problem: an introduction that argues from a gap rather than a reason.
• Reviewer says this is already known — sometimes true, sometimes a misreading of what the prior work showed.
• Reviewer says the paper is out of scope — the fastest objection to act on, because it is rarely worth arguing.

Significance and rigour are scored on separate axes

Two of the most explicit review frameworks in current use write that separation into their forms rather than leaving it to a reader’s judgement. eLife defines “useful” as “findings that have focused importance and scope” and “solid” as methods, data and analyses that “broadly support the claims with only minor weaknesses”. The first sentence is about reach; the second is about evidence; changing the second does not move the first.

NIH formalised the same split for grant review. Under notice NOT-OD-24-010, effective for receipt deadlines on or after 25 January 2025, research project grant applications carry two numerical criterion scores on the 1–9 scale: Factor 1, Importance of the Research, which absorbed the former Significance and Innovation criteria, and Factor 2, Rigor and Feasibility, which absorbed Approach. Factor 3, Expertise and Resources, receives no numerical score at all.

The consequence for a manuscript revision is concrete. An objection that lands on the significance axis cannot be answered with evidence drawn from the rigour axis. Another replicate, another control, an orthogonal assay, a larger cohort — each of these raises the rigour score and leaves the significance score exactly where it was. That is the mechanism behind a common failure in this family: a revision that answers a novelty comment with six months of new experiments, and draws the same comment again from the same reviewer, who now also notes that the authors did not address the point.

Reframing is not spin

Reframing a contribution is legitimate when it makes the contribution more accurately described, and illegitimate when it only makes it sound larger. That is the distinction worth holding, and it is testable rather than a matter of taste.

A paper positioned against the nearest neighbouring study looks incremental. The same paper positioned against the standing assumption it revises looks substantial. If the standing assumption really did change, the second framing is the true one and the first was underselling. If it did not, the second is spin and a reviewer will say so.

Three checks separate the two cases before a reviewer has to.

The citation test. Write the standing assumption as a single sentence and attach a citation to it — a review, a textbook chapter, a model figure in a widely cited paper. If no citation can be attached, the assumption was invented for the introduction and the reframing is decoration.

The evidence test. Ask whether the new framing requires the paper to claim anything the figures do not show. A framing that needs the word “mechanism” over data that establish correlation is not a framing change; it is a claim change, and it draws reviewer says the results are correlative, not causal instead of the novelty comment you were trying to avoid.

The last-sentence test. After reframing, read the final sentence of the abstract against the final figure. If the abstract now ends somewhere the results do not reach, the reframing crossed into overreach — the failure mode covered in how to write an abstract.

A worked reframing: one result, two introductions

A reframing is easiest to judge on a concrete pair, so here is the same hypothetical islet study introduced twice.

Gap-shaped. “Transporter X has been characterised in liver and kidney. Its role in the pancreatic islet has not been studied. We therefore examined X in mouse islets.” Everything in that passage is a fact about the literature. A reviewer who reads it learns that a box was empty and that the authors filled it, which is the definition of an increment.

Assumption-shaped. “Current models of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion assume that glucose entry is not rate-limiting in the beta cell. We show that transporter X sets that rate in mouse islets, and that its loss shifts the glucose threshold for secretion.” Now the comparison is to a model the field holds, the claim is about the world rather than about the bibliography, and a reader can check it.

Three things changed and none of them was a datum. The comparator moved from the nearest neighbouring paper to the standing model. The contribution moved from a location to a statement. And the claim became falsifiable, which is what makes it worth a reviewer’s attention.

The reframing is honest only if the field genuinely holds the assumption named in the second version, and if the paper genuinely moves it. Both are checkable, which is why this reframing is defensible in a response letter and a vaguer one is not.

Telling a framing problem from a real significance problem

Ask whether you can state, in one sentence, what becomes possible or knowable because of this paper that was not before. If you can and the paper does not say it prominently, it is framing. If you cannot, it is significance. That single test resolves most cases, and three others resolve the rest.

The co-author test. Give a co-author who did not write the introduction the abstract alone, and ask them to state the paper’s contribution in one sentence. If their sentence is smaller than yours, the paper is underselling itself and the fix is text.

The downstream-citation test. Name the paper that will cite this one, and the sentence it will cite it for. “Consistent with prior work” is not a use. A contribution nobody will cite for anything specific is a significance problem, and no introduction rewrite reaches it.

The independence test. Two reviewers reaching for “incremental” without having seen each other’s reports is evidence about the paper, not about one reader’s taste. One reviewer saying it while the other calls the work timely is evidence about the venue.

Where the test lands on significance rather than framing, the honest options narrow to two: add the work that changes what the paper establishes, or move to a venue whose threshold the paper already clears. Adding work that only enlarges an existing conclusion satisfies neither.

When the venue is the problem

Significance thresholds are venue properties. A result that a general journal calls incremental may be exactly what a specialist journal exists to publish, and the specialist venue’s readers are the ones who will use it.

Authors often underweight this. Moving a sound paper to a well-matched journal can publish it in months. Chasing a scope threshold with new experiments can take a year, consume a grant cycle, and still draw the same judgement again from a different reviewer.

Some venues remove the threshold outright, and it is worth knowing which. PLOS ONE states seven criteria for publication — original research; results not published elsewhere; experiments, statistics and analyses “performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail”; conclusions supported by the data; intelligible standard English; applicable ethics and research-integrity standards; and adherence to reporting guidelines and data-availability standards. Novelty, importance and degree of advance appear in none of the seven. The journal’s stated position is that submissions are assessed on scientific validity, methodological rigour and ethical standards rather than on how significant a result is judged to be.

Registered Reports remove the threshold a second way, by moving the decision earlier. Stage 1 review assesses the research question and the proposed method before the study’s data are collected, and in-principle acceptance commits the journal to publish the study provided the registered protocol is followed. The format was introduced at Cortex in 2013 and has since been adopted across disciplines. A manuscript holding Stage 1 in-principle acceptance cannot be rejected at Stage 2 for producing a result nobody found exciting.

Choosing between these is a matching exercise rather than a ranking exercise, and it is the substance of journal selection: match on the kind of claim a journal publishes, not only on the topic it covers.

What the reviewer actually writes

Reviewers rarely write “insufficient novelty” as a bare phrase. They write the venue-specific version, and recognising the shape tells you which axis the comment sits on.

“The advance over reference 14 is incremental.” “The study is technically sound, but the conceptual advance is limited for this journal’s readership.” “The authors confirm in a second system what has been reported previously.” “The introduction does not establish why this question matters.” “This reads as a useful dataset rather than a study with a clear conclusion.” “I would support publication in a more specialist venue.” “The innovation here is methodological rather than biological.” Each of these is a significance judgement, and none of them names a defect you can repair.

One shape deserves separate attention because it is routinely misread: the significance objection wearing rigour clothes. “The work would be considerably strengthened by a demonstration that the effect matters in vivo” looks like an experiment request. The tell is that the requested experiment would not change any conclusion the paper currently states — it would only enlarge the conclusion. A genuine rigour request removes a specific alternative explanation for a result you already claim; a significance request in this costume asks for a bigger claim. Sorting the two is the first step described in responding to reviewer comments on methods and design, and reviewer says the mechanism is not shown is the single objection that most often arrives in both forms at once.

Writing the response to a significance objection

Answer a significance objection in three moves, in this order: what was known, what is known now, and what becomes possible that was not. Assertions of importance without that structure are the thing reviewers report as unresponsive.

For the hypothetical islet study above, the response reads:

The reviewer is correct that transporter X has been described in liver and kidney. Those studies established expression and subcellular localisation. Our data establish function in the islet: beta-cell-specific deletion shifts the glucose threshold for insulin secretion, which is the parameter that determines whether a cell responds at fasting glucose. We have revised the introduction to lead with the rate-limiting assumption our data revise rather than with the absence of islet data, and moved the threshold measurement from Figure 5 to Figure 1.

Three properties make that answer work. It concedes the reviewer’s factual point in the first sentence rather than contesting it. It states the difference between the prior claim and this one in terms a reader can check. And it names a change made to the manuscript, so the reviewer is not asked to accept an argument in place of a revision.

Two things to leave out. Do not write that the work is important, novel or timely without the three-move structure behind it; adjectives are what a reviewer reads when there is no argument. And do not add experiments purely to enlarge the paper — a reviewer who has already formed a view of the increment reads unrequested additions as padding. The mechanics of the letter itself, including how to handle a point you are declining, are covered in how to write a response to reviewers, with worked wording in a response to reviewers sample.

When the obvious remedy is unavailable

The two standard remedies — reframe, or move venue — are both sometimes closed, and the fallback in every closed case is to narrow the claim rather than to argue for the wide one.

The experiment cannot be done. The mouse line was lost, the cohort closed, the instrument was decommissioned, the collaborator who ran the assay left. State the claim your existing data support, and put the larger claim in the discussion as a named design: what experiment would establish it, in what system, measuring what. A discussion that specifies the missing experiment reads as command of the problem; one that gestures at “further work” reads as an absence.

A deadline fixes the venue. A thesis submission date, a fellowship renewal, a visa-linked appointment or a competing group working the same question can make a six-month venue change more expensive than the rejection. When that is true, framing plus an appeal is the only lever left, and an appeal is worth attempting only on the narrow grounds below — see when to appeal a rejection for the mechanics.

The reviewer appears to be a competitor. This is the editor’s to adjudicate, not yours. Ask the editor to assess a specific factual claim in the report, supply the evidence that bears on it, and do not characterise the reviewer’s motive. An editor can check a misattributed citation in minutes and cannot check an accusation at all.

The result is negative or a confirmation. Significance objections fall hardest here, and the remedy is venue selection rather than argument: a journal whose stated criteria are validity-based, or a Registered Report where the decision was made before the result existed. Where the objection is specifically that the finding is already established, read the cited papers’ figures before conceding anything — reviewer says this is already known sets out what to check.

The rejection came before review. A significance judgement made by an editor without external review is a desk rejection, and it is the cheapest outcome available: days rather than months. Treat it as information about fit and act the same week — desk rejected without review covers the other reasons a paper is returned early, and rejected after review, what next covers the slower case.

What makes a significance appeal succeed

A significance appeal succeeds on a demonstrable factual error, never on a difference of judgement. Editors will re-open a decision when the record is wrong; they will not re-open one because the authors weigh the contribution differently than the reviewer did.

Three grounds are worth an appeal. The reviewer attributed a finding to prior work that the prior work does not contain — quote the earlier paper’s own limitation sentence, which is frequently narrower than later citations of it. The reviewer evaluated a claim the manuscript does not make, which is checkable against the submitted text in a single reading. Or the reviewer applied a criterion the journal does not publish, which is checkable against the journal’s own criteria page.

Appeals that restate the paper’s importance without new argument rarely succeed, and submitting elsewhere is usually faster. Write the appeal as a short letter to the editor that names the error, points to the evidence, and states what decision you are asking for — not as a second response letter.

Before submission

The study section lens surfaces these objections before a reviewer does — whether significance is demonstrated or asserted, whether the innovation claim is genuine novelty or merely unreported work, whether the introduction gives a reason or a gap, and what the first sceptical criticism will be. It is deliberately the one agent that will tell you the science is fine and the framing is not.

If your abstract makes claims the results do not carry, that reads as overreach rather than significance and draws this objection from the other direction — the overclaim check covers that pass.

The cover letter matters more here than in any other objection family, because the editor forms the significance judgement from it before a reviewer is invited. A cover letter that names the standing assumption the paper revises does the reframing work at the only moment a desk rejection can be prevented; how to write a cover letter covers what belongs in it.

Related

Reviewer says the work is incremental · Reviewer says this is already known · Reviewer says the paper is out of scope · Methods and design objections · Statistical objections

PerfectPaper reads the introduction against the results and reports whether the significance claim is demonstrated or asserted, which of a reviewer’s objections sit on the significance axis rather than the rigour axis, and what the first sceptical reader will say.

Review my manuscript

Frequently asked questions

Can a novelty objection be answered without new experiments?

Often, if the paper was framed as gap-filling rather than as answering a question the field cares about. Reframing works when it describes the contribution more accurately; it fails when it only inflates it. Test it by writing the standing assumption the paper revises as one sentence and attaching a citation to it.

How do I respond to a reviewer who says the work is not novel enough?

Answer in three moves: what was known, what is known now, and what becomes possible that was not. Concede the reviewer’s factual point first, state the difference between the prior claim and yours in checkable terms, then name the change you made to the manuscript. Adjectives such as important, novel and timely, without that structure, read as an absence of argument.

Is it worth appealing a rejection on significance grounds?

Occasionally, when the reviewer demonstrably misread the prior literature or missed the advance. Appeals that restate the paper’s importance without new argument rarely succeed, and submitting elsewhere is usually faster. The three appealable grounds are a misattributed prior finding, a claim the paper does not make, and a criterion the journal does not publish.

How do I tell a framing problem from a real significance problem?

Ask whether you can state, in one sentence, what becomes possible or knowable because of this paper that was not before. If you can and the paper does not say it prominently, it is framing. If you cannot, it is significance. A second check: name the future paper that will cite this one and the sentence it will cite it for.

Does a specialist journal count as a lesser outcome?

No. Venue fit is a matching problem. A paper read and used by the people who need it contributes more than one delayed a year chasing a threshold set for a different kind of result.

Which journals do not judge novelty at all?

Journals with validity-based criteria. PLOS ONE lists seven criteria for publication — original research, not previously published, high technical standard, conclusions supported by the data, intelligible standard English, ethics and integrity, and reporting and data-availability standards — and states that it assesses submissions on scientific validity, methodological rigour and ethical standards rather than on judged significance. Registered Reports go further by granting in-principle acceptance at Stage 1, before any results exist.

Can adding more experiments answer a significance objection?

Only when the addition changes what the paper establishes rather than enlarging what it already establishes. Significance and rigour are scored separately — eLife rates them on two independent scales, and NIH scores Importance of the Research and Rigor and Feasibility as separate 1–9 criterion scores — so extra replicates, controls and orthogonal assays move the rigour judgement and leave the significance judgement untouched.