arXiv:2606. 10794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agentic applications increasingly route user tasks through official and third-party LLM APIs, provenance becomes an operational question: which model generated a given black-box response?
arXiv:2607. 14905v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Given the current trend to employ large language models (LLMs) in almost any imaginable context, LLM-generated text detection and authorship attribution have become a pressing issue.
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.
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.
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.
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 introduces greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment designed to gauge authors’ understanding of their own research manuscripts by measuring their capacity to verify content. It generates questions at multiple levels of comprehension and produces an evaluative report based on responses. A prototype study with 31 researchers showed that automated scores could predict authorship with an AUC of 0.90, and participants reported positive experiences and constructive feedback for future deployment.
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:2602. 20459v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow?
arXiv:2608. 05157v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Double blind peer review serves as the scientific community primary defense against status and affiliation bias.
The paper introduces VOLM, a framework that quantifies how much original value a human adds to a document beyond what a language model could generate from a task description alone. Unlike existing tools that focus on stylistic detection, VOLM extracts content at varying granularities, reconstructs it with an LLM, and compares these reconstructions to those derived from the task description. Evaluations across news articles, ICLR peer reviews, and argumentative essays show that VOLM can distinguish human-authored texts from LLM-generated ones while remaining robust to content-preserving transformations.
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.