This is likely a novice question coming from an undergrad, but recently, I've submitted a review paper to a conference as suggested by my lecturer for academic experience. The topic of the paper is about the capabilities, limitations, concerns, and mitigations of generative AI models.
I've received notification that the paper has been accepted, however, the sole reviewer for my paper has also added the following comments:
This is a review paper, however, the writing style is more like summarising from other's findings. You should consider a systematic literature review or some analysis to come out with your own outlook.
Avoid using we or I in the technical paper.
This has left me quite confused, as I was always under the impression that research should be based on facts and existing evidence, and I'm wary of expressing any personal opinions in my paper that's too far removed from the reviewed literature, which I believe is what made it come off as "summarizing from the finding of others". The suggestion to avoid first-person pronouns only confuses me further. How would I express a personal outlook without doing so?
An example of what I've done would be: Author A finds C. Findings of Author B also support C. Therefore, we believe C may be a viable solution, though its limitations include...
I'm certain that there are flaws with my current understanding, though the problem is that I'm not sure how to go about it correctly, if that makes sense? This leads back to my initial question: how does one make a review paper unique, and not just something cobbled together and taped up from other papers like Frankenstein's monster?