Is it ever right to just agree the novelty is limited?

Yes. If, after honestly checking the closest prior work, your contribution really is a small increment, it's better to reframe the paper around what it does contribute (a replication, a negative result, an application, a dataset) than to argue a novelty claim you can't defend.

How many prior works should I compare against in the response?

Enough to cover the two or three most similar works the reviewer is likely thinking of, plus any they named directly. A short, specific table beats a long, vague list — reviewers are checking whether you understand the difference, not counting citations.

Should the novelty defense go in the response letter, the paper, or both?

Both. The response letter can be more direct and comparative; the paper itself needs the differentiation built into the related work section and the introduction, since future readers won't see the response letter.

How to Respond When a Reviewer Says "Novelty Is Limited"

"Novelty is limited" is one of the most common reviewer comments across fields, and one of the least specific. Before drafting a response, work out which of three situations you're actually in — the diagnosis changes everything downstream.

Situation 1: the contribution is real but poorly framed

This is the most common case. The paper's introduction and related-work section describe what was done, but don't clearly state what's different from the closest prior work — so the reviewer, reading quickly, assumes it's incremental because the differentiation was never made explicit.

Fix: Add a short, direct comparison — ideally a table — of your approach against the two or three closest prior works, naming exactly what's different in method, scope, or setting. In the response letter, state this comparison plainly: "Our work differs from [X] in that..." Don't just say the paper is novel; show the specific delta.

Situation 2: the reviewer isn't aware of a subfield distinction

Sometimes the reviewer is working from a different mental map of the literature than you are — they see your work as similar to a body of prior research that, to specialists in your specific subfield, is understood to solve a genuinely different problem.

Fix: Respond respectfully and specifically, without implying the reviewer is uninformed. Name the prior works they're likely thinking of, and explain precisely what distinguishes your problem setting, assumptions, or evaluation criteria from that line of work. This is a case where more citations to the specific distinguishing works helps more than a general defense of novelty.

Situation 3: the contribution really is incremental

Sometimes the reviewer is right. If, after an honest look at the closest prior work, the paper's contribution is genuinely a small step beyond what's already published, arguing novelty is a losing strategy — reviewers who read closely will not be persuaded by assertion.

Fix: Reframe rather than defend. Many incremental contributions are still publishable when honestly framed as what they are: a careful replication, a negative result worth reporting, an application of an existing method to a new and non-trivial setting, or a useful dataset/benchmark contribution. Adjust the paper's framing and, if needed, the target venue to match a genuinely incremental-but-useful contribution rather than overclaiming.

Writing the actual response

Open with the specific comparison, not a general defense — "Compared to [X] and [Y], our approach..." beats "We believe our work is novel because..."
Use a short comparison table if there are two or more closely related prior works — it's the fastest way for a reviewer to verify your claim.
Update the paper's related work section to match the response, not just the response letter — future readers won't see your reply to reviewers.
If you're in situation 3, say so honestly in the response and describe the reframing, rather than making a novelty argument you can't fully defend.

If you want a second opinion before you argue novelty in a response letter, Response to Reviewers checks whether your draft response actually addresses the reviewer's specific point or just asserts novelty without evidence — the kind of gap that's easy to miss when you're close to your own paper.