How to Effectively Address Reviewer Comments on Insufficient Related Work Discussion

Problem

Reviewers may comment that the manuscript "does not sufficiently discuss related work such as A, B, C," questioning whether the authors understand the research landscape and what gap their work fills.

Why a simple "we will add citations" is insufficient

The reviewer’s concern includes:

What problem each cited work addresses.

Where the cited work overlaps with the current study.

Key differences between the cited work and the current study.

What gap the current study fills relative to those works.

Whether the distinction should be clarified in both the related‑work and method sections.

Therefore, merely promising to add references does not answer the reviewer.

Recommended reply structure

Combine citation addition with an explicit description of each work’s relationship to the paper and the novel contribution.

Thank you for the comment. We will add references to works A, B, and C and clarify their connections to our paper. Specifically, work A focuses on XXX; work B addresses YYY; work C is most similar to ours but assumes ZZZ, whereas our paper investigates AAA. Consequently, we will expand the related‑work and method sections with a comparative discussion to avoid any misunderstanding of our contributions.

Step‑by‑step guidance

1. Categorize related work

Group prior work by theme instead of listing them indiscriminately.

Category A: works that define the problem setting.

Category B: works that propose particular technical approaches.

Category C: works most closely related to our method.

2. Explain the relationship

For each important work, state clearly what it solves and how that differs from our focus, or note any differing assumptions.

This work solves XXX, while our paper tackles YYY. This work adopts the assumption ZZZ, which we relax/extend to AAA.

3. Highlight the gap filled

Conclude the related‑work discussion by emphasizing the remaining gap.

Although existing works have advanced XXX, none provide a systematic study of YYY; our paper addresses this gap.

Core answer

When faced with the “insufficient related work” criticism, the response should not be limited to “we will add citations.” It must also explain:

What each cited work does.

How it relates to the current study.

What specific research gap the current paper addresses.

This approach satisfies the reviewer and clarifies the paper’s positioning.

Project repository

GitHub address: https://github.com/MLNLP-World/Paper-Rebuttal-Tips