LAUSR

Publishing research articles has never been as simple and straightforward as nowadays. New journals sprout every day and our mailboxes are spilling over with e-mail solicitations to submit manuscripts. Paradoxically, getting papers sent out for peer review in high profile periodicals (both specialized and non-specialized) has become increasingly challenging, at least in the field of pharmaceutical technology. One of the hurdles to overcome is the novelty aspect. In the guidelines for authors, this requirement is expressed in a variety of shades, but in practice, it is frequently and erroneously assimilated to reporting findings of high significance. If the content of a paper is not judged as novel enough by an editor, it is expeditiously returned to its authors, generally with a polite generic response, such as: “Our journal declines a substantial proportion of papers without sending them for peer review. These decisions are made when the manuscripts do not fulfill the criteria for publication in the journal of ...”. As an author and a former associate editor, I know what this sentence means. One of those “criteria for publication” is novelty, but what does novelty really mean in pharmaceutical technology? This is a complex question as there are different levels at which findings can be regarded as novel.