In one of my first research classes, our professor was big on asking if the paper passed the “so what?” test. Of course, most of the papers we were reviewing were published so there was a good chance that someone along the way felt the author was making a worthwhile contribution. However, this notion of a piece of scholarly work passing the “so what?” test has stuck with me.
While the answer to the test can certainly be in the eye of the beholder, I do have several years of experience working as an editorial assistant to Dr. Gary Morrison on an academic journal. My role gave me the chance to read HUNDREDS of unpublished but hopeful submissions. While we certainly didn’t have an editorial “so what?” test, I did get pretty good at spotting those that one could consider “so what?” challenged 🙂
I think one of the most common ways a paper can become “so what?” challenged is when the author doesn’t put his/her work into the context of the existing body of knowledge. When the literature review doesn’t conclude with a clear transition from a stated gap in the literature to the purpose of the study, it’s a red flag that the author is about to fly solo into “so what?” territory. You can read between the lines on these papers and assume that the person had an interesting idea but didn’t put in the time and effort to ground the work in relevant theory, parse the text to define and relate terms, provide necessary context about where the work sits alongside other papers, or lay down breadcrumbs back to the work of others. As such, the paper just hangs out there by itself and we’re left to make sense of it. If the missing links are too significant, we’re left to shrug and say “so what?”