<![CDATA[Doctoral-level legal research demands clear scientific contributions through the identification of research gaps and the formulation of novelties. However, in practice, methodological weaknesses are still found, such as research gaps that are formulated in general, non-explicit terms, and novelties that are not connected to research gaps. This study aims to analyze the concepts of research gaps and novelties, identify methodological problems in legal research, and formulate a systematic strategy for finding research gaps and generating novelties. This research is a normative legal study with a conceptual and comparative approach, using secondary legal materials in the form of books and scientific journal articles. The analysis was conducted qualitatively with an argumentative approach. The results show that research gap identification is often not carried out systematically and is not supported by critical analysis. Furthermore, novelties tend to be declarative and not integrated with research gaps. This study offers a strategic model that includes issue identification, literature mapping, gap analysis, and the formulation of novelties as a direct response to research gaps. This study confirms that the quality of legal research is largely determined by the ability to formulate research gaps and novelties systematically.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
