The paper introduces an author-facing large language model (LLM) system that generates a broad set of atomic concerns about a manuscript and compresses them into a concise report, aiming to provide early peer‑review feedback. Evaluations on 3,398 ICLR 2026 submissions show that the system covers 44.9% of historical reviewer issues on a diagnostic set, rising to 78.7% strict coverage and 84.9% seriousness‑weighted coverage after deduplication and refill, using 3.6× more requests and 5.2× more tokens. Ablation studies reveal that representative selection and matcher sensitivity are key factors limiting the compression quality.
arXiv:2604. 04074v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify.
arXiv:2601.17036v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of...
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
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...
arXiv:2610.01023v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents can return plausible patches that omit required behavior. These failures are hard to review because long traces and confident summaries...
arXiv:2607. 18360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.
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.
arXiv:2510. 02027v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scholarly publishing requires scalable scrutiny supported by auditable evidence.
arXiv:2607. 11918v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues.
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...
arXiv:2610.01471v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by...
arXiv:2608.23001v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated manuscript pipelines often regenerate an entire section to repair a local defect, allowing unrelated metrics and citations to change even whe...