Beyond “Not Novel Enough”: Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback

Novelty assessment is a central yet understudied aspect of peer review, particularly in high-volume fields like NLP where reviewer capacity is increasingly strained. We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages: (i) content extraction from submissions, (ii) retrieval and synthesis of related work, and (iii) structured comparison for evidence-based assessment. Our method is informed by analysis of human-written novelty reviews and captures key patterns such as independent claim verification and contextual reasoning. Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions with human annotated reviewer novelty assessments, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions, substantially outperforming existing LLM-based baselines. It produces detailed, literature-aware analysis and improves consistency over ad hoc reviewer judgments. These results highlight the potential for structured LLM-assisted approaches to support more rigorous and transparent peer review without displacing human expertise. The data and the code are available at https://ukplab.github.io/eacl2026-assessing-paper-novelty/.