In today’s publish-or-perish world, many authors believe that simply showing something new or interesting is enough to get their manuscript accepted. Yet, as editorial teams of leading journals stress, novelty alone won’t cut it. What matters more is how your work shifts or extends existing theory.
Put differently: It’s not enough to ask “What’s new?” You must also ask “What does this change in theory?” Many manuscripts get desk-rejected simply because they fail to articulate this critical dimension. SpringerLink
From my experience working with authors and research consultancies, the same five gaps keep appearing:
- You haven’t clearly defined the delta your research addresses.
- You emphasise correlation rather than mechanism (why/how).
- Your scope (“when, where, for whom”) is vague.
- Construct definitions or measurement logic feel fuzzy or disconnected.
- You fail to enter and advance the ongoing theoretical debate.
In this article I’ll expand on each of these, bring in the latest evidence on what constitutes a theoretical contribution, provide graphics, infographics and charts to help you visualise the process, and give you SEO-optimized guidance so you can use this as a high-value blog post or content asset to attract researchers, academics, and professionals. Let’s dive in.
What is a Theoretical Contribution?
A theoretical contribution is more than “we found something new”. It refers to the critical addition or shift in understanding within an academic field—often by specifying new relations between constructs, introducing mechanisms, or revealing boundary conditions. ResearchWithFawad
For instance, Whetten (1989) outlines three core questions for theory development:
- What are the constructs?
- How are they related?
- Why are they related (mechanism)? ResearchGate
Later research refines this: contributions can be judged by originality (incremental vs revelatory) and utility (scientific vs practical). Academy of Management
“A theory-related contribution is usually mandatory for a manuscript to be accepted by any leading IB journal.” SpringerLink
Five Key Gaps Authors Often Miss
Here are five critical issues that authors repeatedly overlook—and how to fix them.
1. Define the Delta
You must clearly articulate which part of the theory you are altering: a new proposition, a mechanism, or a boundary condition. Without this, your contribution remains vague.
Tip: Start your paper with a sentence like: “This study proposes modification to X mechanism within Y model by introducing Z boundary condition.”
2. Explain the Why (Mechanism > Correlation)
Top journals prefer mechanism-based explanations rather than simple correlations. It’s the “why and how” behind the link that matters. AIS eLibrary
Tip: Use process diagrams or logic models to show how constructs interact over time.
3. State the Scope: When/Where/For Whom
Your findings don’t apply everywhere. Be explicit about when, where, and for whom your results hold (or break). This adds clarity and practical value.
Tip: Add a dedicated section: “Boundary Conditions & Generalisability”.
4. Do Construct Work
Don’t assume your constructs or measures are automatically understood. Clarify definitions, show how you measured them, and integrate fragmented literatures into a cohesive theoretical framework. Research Rebels
Tip: Use a table listing each construct, its definition, and measurement source.
5. Position Clearly in an Active Debate
You need to show where you enter the conversation and how you move it forward. Which debate are you joining? What open question are you solving?
Tip: Use “Literature Gap → Study Contribution” headings early in your introduction.
What Top Journals Ask—and What That Means for You
Leading academic journals set a high standard for theoretical contributions:
- They expect manuscripts to explicitly signal the contribution (the delta) and show the mechanism. JSTOR
- They look for strong construct logic, clear boundary conditions, and theoretical positioning.
- Many desk-rejections occur because authors fail to align with what the journal expects in terms of contribution type. ResearchGate
How to Turn “Interesting” into “Publishable Theory”
As a content strategy and research communication specialist (and from my collaboration with consultancies), I recommend the following steps:
- Frame the Question: Start with a clear problem and highlight the theoretical gap.
- Develop the Contribution Statement: One or two sentences summarising what you change, why it matters, when/where/for whom.
- Articulate the Mechanism: Use diagrams or flowcharts to show causal logic.
- Clarify Scope & Boundaries: Explicitly state limitations and boundary conditions.
- Construct Map/Table: Define constructs, measures, and their interrelations.
- Integrate Literatures: Show how your study unifies or advances fragmented theory streams.
- Target the Journal: Ensure your contribution aligns with the journal’s scope and expected contribution type.
- Communicate to Non-Experts: Use blog posts, infographics or social media to summarise your contribution and increase visibility (great for SEO).
References
Question for you:
What is the single biggest theoretical gap your current research addresses — and how would you summarise the “delta” in one sentence?
Share below and let’s discuss!
- Scott, N. (2025). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Journal of Business Venturing Insights. ScienceDirect
- Corley, K. & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building. Academy of Management Review. abehandler.com
- Santangelo, G.D. & Verbeke, A. (2022). Actionable guidelines to improve ‘theory-related’ contributions in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies, 53, 1843-1855. SpringerLink
- Bispo, M. de S. (2023). Scientific articles’ theoretical, practical, methodological and didactic contributions. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 27(1). ResearchGate
Want research service from Research & Report experts? Please get in touch with us.
Call or Whatsapp +8801813420055