The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
By Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu, Xiaochen Wang, Jimin Wang
arXiv:2607. 22553v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Peer review is an essential process in scientific research, yet the growing workload has made its automation increasingly necessary.
By Haowen Li, Yoichi Ishibashi, Masafumi Oyamada
The paper introduces EquiReview‑R, an AI‑assisted review system that treats omission and over‑critique as distinct risks and refines a structured concern set using evidence‑linked reasoning. It demonstrates that more criticism does not guarantee a better review, showing that many high‑recall reviews lack definitive evidence for concerns and that revision before further search is essential. On a held‑out set of papers, EquiReview‑R meets non‑inferiority for major omission, cuts major over‑critique from 15.5 % to 8.1 %, and stops on 52.4 % of papers, with gains attributed to revision rather than extra inference.
By Zexing Zhang, Jichao Li, Tianyang Lei, Yude Fu, Yang Kewei
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence.
arXiv:2601. 14171v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details.
By Qianli Ma, Chang Guo, Zhiheng Tian, Siyu Wang, Jipeng Xiao, Yuanhao Yue, Zhipeng Zhang
arXiv:2605.26911v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and...
By Hanqi Duan, Xiang Li
arXiv:2609.14738v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it le...
By Vidushee Vats, Karun Sharma, Shengzhi Li, Shichao Pei
arXiv:2609.25046v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing, yet verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by manuscript evidence remains a largely...
By Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Radin Cheraghi, Negar Arabzadeh, Ebrahim Bagheri
arXiv:2609.37097v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The rapid growth of submissions and reviewing workload has accelerated the use of large language models (LLMs) in peer review. Prior studies suggest th...
By Zhuo Chen, Hao Zeng, Jiawei Liu, Guoxiu He, Le Cai, Liu Haotan, Li Wenbo, Yong Huang, Wei Lu
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
arXiv:2610.35254v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The number of paper submissions to major AI conferences has increased dramatically in recent years, substantially increasing the peer-review workload o...
By Sai Suresh Macharla Vasu, Sumedh Santosh Joshi, Philipp Christmann, Ivaxi Sheth, Ruta Binkyte, Koel Dutta Chowdhury, Raouf Kerkouche, Hui-Po Wang, Mario Fritz