arXiv AI

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: 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.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities.

arXiv AI
Aug 5

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

arXiv:2608. 03581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are.

By Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber, Kry\v{s}tof Ol\'ik, Georg Groh
arXiv AI
Jun 17

BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?

arXiv:2510. 18003v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight.

By Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu, Basel Alomair, Radha Poovendran
arXiv AI
Aug 11

How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review

arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.

By Ming Li, Chenguang Wang, Xirui Li, Xinyue Zeng, Dianqi Li, Peng Shi, Dawei Zhou, Tianyi Zhou
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 10

How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions.

arXiv Machine Learning
6d ago

Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity

arXiv:2608. 11256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct.

By Jonathan A. Karr Jr, Grigorii Khvatskii, Ting Hua, Nitesh V. Chawla