Contribution Framing (psychrev-contribution-framing)

When to trigger

• The theory is built, derived, and bounded; now you must say why it matters
• You can describe what your model is but not what is new about it
• A reviewer will ask "how is this an advance over [the standing model]?"
• The contribution reads as "we propose a model of X" with no before → after

The two questions every Review reviewer asks

1. What can the field explain after this paper that it could not before? Stated as a concrete before → after against a named prior model — not against "the literature."
2. Why could the prior models not get there? Identify the specific commitment or omission in the rival that your theory replaces or adds. "More accurate fit" is rarely enough; the advance should be a mechanism or unification, not a better-tuned curve.

Sizing the contribution (be honest about which you have)