Abstract
Assessing originality in AI research is arguably the most consequential yet least reliable step in peer review. Reviewer judgments of originality remain opaque, inconsistent, and dependent on comparisons to prior work that are often incomplete. In this paper, we present a large-scale, data-driven qualitative and quantitative analysis of research originality based on over 100,000 peer-review reports from leading AI venues, spanning a period of rapid growth in the field. Leveraging structured, semantically retrieved prior work and signals embedded in expert reviewer assessments, we systematically characterize how originality is perceived in practice and identify the key dimensions that most strongly influence novelty judgments. Our analysis yields a fine-grained, evidence-based framework that equips both authors and reviewers with actionable insights into how originality is evaluated. In addition, we evaluate the reliability of current large language model (LLM) agents in assessing originality. We find that these models tend to systematically overestimate novelty and struggle to detect conceptual plagiarism, particularly in the presence of paraphrasing. We release our dataset, trained models, and code at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Novelty-Reviewer-365C/.