The study evaluates literature reviews produced by large language models (LLMs) using short and long context windows, assessing their quality across 15 dimensions. Results show that while larger context windows allow LLMs to incorporate more information and maintain coherence, they also increase repetition, omission of key works, and a tendency toward descriptive rather than synthetic content. Human oversight remains essential for meeting academic publishing standards, and the authors suggest future work should blend human expertise with AI to mitigate these limitations.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
arXiv:2508.14273v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As researchers increasingly adopt LLMs as writing assistants, generating high-quality research paper introductions remains both challenging and ess...
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.
The paper evaluates browser-based large language models (LLMs) for extracting detailed, contextualized data from scientific papers. It presents four workflows: (1) expert-curated prompts yield good extraction but struggle with nuance; (2) LLMs can generate effective prompts from simple instructions; (3) autonomous literature discovery is challenging, with missing or hallucinated references; (4) LLMs can build new datasets from guidelines that align closely with human experts, yet still need human oversight. The study outlines a practical, auditable workflow where experts set standards, models cross-check extractions, and researchers resolve disputes, enabling scalable scientific data curation.
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.
Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require.
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:2610.07365v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As LLMs increasingly assist scientific writing and peer review, detecting who wrote the text is no longer sufficient: we need to determine who contribu...
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
SciLitBench is a multi-stage benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in systematic literature reviews, covering title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and schema-guided data extraction across 42,981 records and 888 included papers. The study shows that explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria boost title and abstract screening performance by 28.8% and researcher-authored rationales improve full-text screening by 15%. Data extraction performance varies widely, with high accuracy for publication year but low overlap for computational approaches, and even the best models recover only a fraction of annotated evidence and limitations.
arXiv:2607. 24991v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs).