It is a common problem that the repetition rate of paper reviews is high, which has a lot to do with the nature of the reviews themselves. Because the review article is a summary and refinement of previous research results, it only shows these results in a more organized way, and gets corresponding conclusions or predictions of research direction.

If you don't write these predecessors' research results in the summary, you will lose the significance of writing such articles. So high repetition rate is really troublesome.

But getting higher and higher is a bit unlikely, isn't it? Is the method not quite right?

The repetition rate of the review is similar to other articles, and it still expounds the previous research results, but it can be appropriately changed to elaborate in its own words, but the meaning of the previous conclusions cannot be changed, so it is good to reduce the effectiveness of repetition. You can try.