The paper presents an LLM-driven framework that splits peer reviews into argumentative segments, detects multiple co-occurring issues such as lazy thinking and lack of specificity, and generates targeted, guideline-aware feedback using issue-specific templates. An iterative, reranking-based generation algorithm refines the feedback, and a controlled rewriting study shows it can reduce guideline violations by up to 92.4%. The authors also release LazyReviewPlus, a multi-label dataset of 1,309 sentences annotated for detecting lazy thinking and lack of specificity.
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
arXiv:2609.05947v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Peer review is central to quality control in science. However, existing evaluations of AI-assisted peer review mainly focus on the overall quality of g...
CriticGen introduces a generation‑aware evaluation framework that generates sample‑specific evaluation dimensions and scoring criteria across categories such as subjective, objective, and self‑derived constraints. These dynamic rubrics produce a score, reason, executable refinement suggestion, and a refined answer, enabling models to diagnose and target flaws in their responses. Experiments show significant gains in rubric quality, score correlation, and actionable feedback, with 73.17% of answers improved and a 93.28% non‑degradation rate.
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:2607. 26066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review.
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.