The debatable notion of “novelty deficiency” in significant conservation domains

Abstract

In significant conservation domains, rejecting papers to prioritize novelty, may impede scientific and social progress as these studies carry crucial policy and practical implications. The research's rigor (rather than novelty) should be the primary criterion for evaluating the works’ robustness and suitability for publication. Innovation is essential, but science requires a balanced approach, encompassing both conceptual innovation and practical research.