Related papers: ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detec…
Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of…
Peer review at AI conferences is stressed by rapidly rising submission volumes, leading to deteriorating review quality and increased author dissatisfaction. To address these issues, we developed Review Feedback Agent, a system leveraging…
Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to the merits of…
The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review. In this work, we propose: 1. ReviewEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated…
The rapid expansion of AI research has intensified the Reviewer Gap, threatening the peer-review sustainability and perpetuating a cycle of low-quality evaluations. This position paper critiques existing LLM approaches that automatically…
Peer review remains the central quality-control mechanism of science, yet its ability to fulfill this role is increasingly strained. Empirical studies document serious shortcomings: long publication delays, escalating reviewer burden…
Peer review is central to scientific quality, yet reliance on simple heuristics -- lazy thinking -- has lowered standards. Prior work treats lazy thinking detection as a single-label task, but review segments may exhibit multiple issues,…
How does the progressive embracement of Large Language Models (LLMs) affect scientific peer reviewing? This multifaceted question is fundamental to the effectiveness -- as well as to the integrity -- of the scientific process. Recent…
The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in…
The growing integration of large language models (LLMs) into the peer review process presents potential risks to the fairness and reliability of scholarly evaluation. While LLMs offer valuable assistance for reviewers with language…
Peer review is fundamental to scientific research, but the growing volume of publications has intensified the challenges of this expertise-intensive process. While LLMs show promise in various scientific tasks, their potential to assist…
Peer review is essential for maintaining academic quality, but the increasing volume of submissions places a significant burden on reviewers. Large language models (LLMs) offer potential assistance in this process, yet their susceptibility…
The growing availability of large language models (LLMs) has raised questions about their role in academic peer review. This study examines the temporal emergence of AI-generated content in peer reviews by applying a detection model trained…
How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas,…
This study examines the potential of large language models (LLMs) to augment the academic peer review process by reliably evaluating the quality of economics research without introducing systematic bias. We conduct one of the first…
Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community. With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge. The primary issue lies in…
Conducting literature reviews for scientific papers is essential for understanding research, its limitations, and building on existing work. It is a tedious task which makes an automatic literature review generator appealing. Unfortunately,…
LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or…
The increasing volume of research paper submissions poses a significant challenge to the traditional academic peer-review system, leading to an overwhelming workload for reviewers. This study explores the potential of integrating Large…
A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies…