How to Effectively Counter Reviewer Claims of Insufficient Novelty

Problem

Reviewers often state “the paper’s method is similar to prior work A, therefore it lacks innovation.” This objection is frequent and decisive; an inadequate rebuttal can lead the reviewer to deem the submission unoriginal.

Undesirable response

Reviewer comment: “The paper’s method is similar to prior work A, therefore it lacks innovation.” Typical author reply: “Thank you for the constructive feedback. Our method differs from existing work, so it has some innovation.”

This reply is problematic because it only asserts a difference without explaining how, leaving the reviewer without concrete evidence.

What exactly does prior work A do?

What does the current paper do?

Where are the similarities?

What are the key differences?

Why do those differences constitute a genuine contribution?

Recommended response

Thank you for the constructive feedback. We would like to clarify that our work differs from method A in three main aspects: 1. Different motivation: Method A focuses on XXX , whereas our work addresses YYY . 2. Distinct implementation: Method A adopts XXX , while we design ZZZ . 3. Different impact: Method A is primarily used for AAA , whereas our approach serves BBB . We will add a clearer comparative discussion in the revised manuscript to avoid any misunderstanding of the relationship between our work and existing research.

Core principle

When facing the “insufficient novelty / similar to prior work” objection, explicitly outline:

What prior work does → What our paper does → Exactly how they differ.

Only by detailing these concrete differences can reviewers appreciate the added contribution.

One‑sentence takeaway

Do not merely claim “we have innovation”; clearly state what prior work does, what our paper does, and precisely where they diverge.

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