arXiv AI
Jul 7
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
arXiv:2605. 03202v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis.
Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions
arXiv:2606. 01013v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 10
Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community
arXiv:2606. 10159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage.
arXiv AI
Jun 10
Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem
arXiv:2506. 08134v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 16
PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress
PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.
arXiv AI
Aug 18
Local AI pre-screening for human triple-blind peer review in health sciences
arXiv:2608. 14625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Academic peer review is under mounting strain: NeurIPS 2025 received 21,575 submissions, ICLR 2025 received 11,603, and ICML 2025 received 12,107.
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 Machine Learning
Jul 30
Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies
arXiv:2607. 27191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research.
arXiv AI
Aug 19
Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Exploit AI-Assisted Peer Review
The article reports that in July 2025, 18 arXiv manuscripts contained hidden instructions designed to manipulate AI‑assisted peer review, such as covert commands to give only positive reviews. These prompts were concealed using white text and microscopic fonts, and the authors’ reactions ranged from withdrawal to defending the practice as a test of reviewer misuse of large language models. The study identifies four types of hidden prompts, critiques the ineffectiveness of honeypot defenses, and highlights inconsistent publisher policies while calling for controlled AI integration and harmonized guidelines in academic evaluation.
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.
arXiv AI
Jun 29
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
arXiv:2606. 28277v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving.
arXiv AI
Jun 8
Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
arXiv:2605. 17548v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process.
arXiv AI
Jun 24
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.