A recent spotlight paper in Trends in Ecology & Evolution by Goran Arnqvist challenged the notion that editors should use novelty as means to review submissions. This is a very useful contribution to the dialog associated with evolving peer review. It is particularly important for Oikos. A significant aspect of Oikos publications is novel synthesis as described in the mission statement. Consequently, the ability to assess novelty is a necessary skill for editors. In a commentary on this topic, I propose that a solution to this apparent dilemma is to shift the focus from seeking novelty to seeking creativity. This may seem like a subtle semantic shift, but creativity research is a well articulated discipline and is best defined as the combination of novel + useful. I suspect most Oikos editors use some working definition similar to this conceptual framework already.
Chasing creativity may be like chasing the white rabbit in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, but we are already down the rabbit hole of peer review and formalizing and discussing how we evaluate the work of others is a positive step forward.