Editorial addresses challenges in defining novelty in publication criteria, highlighting its variance across paradigms.
This editorial is inspired by a growing concern within the information systems (IS) community that novelty has become a dominant criterion for publication, despite being unevenly interpreted and poorly specified. In our editorial experience, when authors are told that their papers lack novelty, they often receive little concrete guidance on what precisely counts as novelty, how it varies across paradigms, or how it should be balanced with rigor and relevance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sun et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: