arXiv:2606. 28363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To describe the architecture and design rationale of meta-pipe, an open-source large language model (LLM)-agent pipeline that integrates the complete systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) workflow -- from literature search through statistical analysis, manuscript generation, and quality assurance -- with mandatory human oversight at critical decision points.
arXiv:2606. 28362v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) remain the gold standard for evidence synthesis, yet completing one typically requires 67 weeks and substantial expert effort.
arXiv:2608.28596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems adv...
Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experimentation, and report generation. However, open-end...
arXiv:2607. 15247v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evidence synthesis is crucial for turning primary research into reliable knowledge for science, medicine, education, and policy.
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
The paper introduces PRISMA-LLM, a reporting framework for AI-assisted systematic reviews. It is based on an analysis of 888 review-automation papers, showing a shift toward LLM- and software-driven workflows and inconsistent reporting of evaluation and limitations. The framework separates implementation details from consequence-sensitive evaluation and limitation reporting.
arXiv:2608.31076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experi...
arXiv:2607. 24991v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs).
arXiv:2605. 21347v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Diagnosing failures in LLM agents remains largely manual.
Context: Generative AI (GenAI) and Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for academic tasks in software engineering and beyond, including systematic literature reviews (SLRs). However, while capable of summarizing text, there is no guarantee they can meet the rigour, reliability, and transparency that SLRs require.
EviStreams is a live, open‑source, no‑code web platform that enables systematic review teams to control AI‑assisted data extraction at three stages: program design, field specification, and extracted predictions. Reviewers use a form builder to define typed fields, run extraction on PDFs, inspect AI‑generated values with supporting passages, and perform blinded dual review with adjudication to produce an auditable consensus export. An evaluation across four clinical corpora and three model families shows that extraction quality depends more on field specification than on the model choice.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.