Q: Would my work be considered addressing a research gap or making a contribution?
During my previous work, I applied a control method for the PV (photovoltaic) system. Now, I am going to apply this method to control [a] wind system. This control method has never been applied for the area in which I am researching. This control method is to overcome the limitation of the existing ones. So, would this be considered a research gap and [or a] contribution?
How will you describe the research gap in this context? A research gap is essentially a gap in knowledge, and a gap implies at least two reference points of knowledge: we know A and we know B but we do not know how to go to B from A.
From your description, I imagine that you found a way of controlling a PV system remotely, without actually getting close to the installation (something like SCADA, or supervisory control and data acquisition?), and now you want to apply the same method to control a wind turbine. If this is indeed so, the work will qualify as a contribution.
When you developed the method and applied it the first time, you bridged a gap in knowledge by showing how an installation can be controlled remotely. When you repeat that method in another context, that work can no longer be considered bridging a gap but can certainly qualify as a contribution. That the method has never been applied to a given area is not enough to qualify as work that bridges a knowledge gap. For instance, assume that someone found a way to make an apple tree flower out of season by spraying with a particular chemical: replicating that finding on another plant, say a peach or a mango can be at best a contribution.
For more information on research gaps, you may refer to the following resources:
This content belongs to the Manuscript Writing Stage
Translate your research into a publication-worthy manuscript by understanding the nuances of academic writing. Subscribe and get curated reads that will help you write an excellent manuscript.