Oxford dictionary defines innovation as “The action or process of innovating” a new method, idea, product etc”. This is a high-level definition of a word which is not awarded apt importance. But, in hindsight, every person has to a certain extent, innovated. Albeit lazy, the human race is an intelligent one proof of which is the fact that we are the most dominant species on Earth. Ever since humanity’s infancy, we have thrived to make our life easier by trying to reduce time and effort to get things done. From designing the first stone tools, inventing the wheel and making groundbreaking advances in medical technology, everything has been fueled by our constant thirst to innovate. Unlike in the past when innovating was restricted to simplifying tasks, innovation now has a greater purpose – for a nation to be ahead of the curve in being a global and political power.
Fruition for the new ideas, products or studies by intuitive minds is achieved when the innovations are documented. These documents can be manuscripts for journals or to file a patent. But, the process of writing journals and filing patents is strenuous. Moreover, one needs to make a herculean effort of dealing with the anxiety to follow. Not all manuscripts will be accepted by the review board of the journals due to several reasons. Some of the reasons are as listed below.
1. Articles fail the technical screening.
• The manuscripts are thoroughly checked for elements that are suspected to be plagiarized or if it is currently
under review at another journal.
• The manuscript is not complete; it may be lacking key elements such as the title, authors, affiliations,
keywords, main text, references and all tables and figures.
• The quality of language used might not meet the expected standards.
• The references used might be archaic and irrelevant.
2. Articles are incomplete.
• The article may contain observations. But, it might not be a thorough study.
• Some findings related to an important study might not be addressed.
• The manuscripts maybe scientifically incomplete and/or lacks a significant, novel contribution to the field.
3. The procedures and/or analysis of the data is seen to be defective.
• The study lacked clear control groups or other comparison metrics.
• The study did not conform to recognized procedures or methodology that can be repeated.
• The analysis is not statistically valid or does not follow the norms of the field.
4. The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the paper’s contents.
• The arguments maybe illogical, unstructured or even invalid.
• The conclusions presented might not be supported by the data.
5. The article might be an extension of a different paper, often from the same author.
• The findings might be nominal leading to no advances in the study.
• A larger study would be split into several articles to have as many articles as possible.
6. The Article might be inarticulate.
• The language, structure or figures may not convey enough to assess the merit.
7. The article has poor scholarship.
• The article is not adequately referenced, it ignores or fails to address important literature within the field,
or the references are outdated
It takes a tremendous amount of effort for a person to meticulously research, tabulate their findings and be certain that their research or invention involves something novel. To say the least, it would be disheartening to have something we have worked on with passion and invested a great deal of time, rejected. Every aspect of the study mentioned previously will have to be adhered to. This is where we come in. We at Brainaura have the appropriate skills required to lend a hand and guide you through the whole process.
Author- Kiran H J. A typical techie with an atypical flair for painting pictures with words. firstname.lastname@example.org