arXiv:2606.13349v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Effective peer review requires adaptive investigation that responds to evidence emerging from each paper. Existing LLM-based reviewers largely orga...
The paper introduces Mr Dre, an evaluation suite that tests Deep Research Agents (DRAs) on multi-turn report revision, a process more reflective of human research practices. It defines a unified long‑form report protocol covering comprehensiveness, factuality, and presentation, and includes a human‑verified feedback simulation pipeline. Analysis of five DRAs shows that while agents can address most user feedback, they regress on 16‑28% of previously covered content and citation quality, and over successive turns they disrupt unrelated content and fail to preserve earlier edits, with prompt engineering and dedicated subagents offering limited improvement.
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.
The study examines whether AI reviewers’ scores reflect authors’ revisions by analyzing 6,959 paper trajectories from five AI conferences. Major revisions that add empirical evidence and improve framing are identified, yet most reviewers do not change scores for these improvements and agreement on score direction is weak. Reviewer-specific associations exist, but overall predictive power is limited, and brief negative comments can negate any scoring gains from substantive revisions.
arXiv:2609.24028v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approac...
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: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...
FMMD is a multimodal, multidisciplinary dataset of open peer reviews from F1000Research that pairs manuscript-level visual and structural data with version‑specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. It addresses key gaps in existing datasets by preserving precise alignment between review comments and the exact manuscript version, and by including a wide range of scientific disciplines beyond computer science. The dataset supports tasks such as visual‑semantic consistency classification, figure‑related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction, providing a comprehensive empirical resource for multimodal automated scholarly paper review research.
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:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
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.
The paper introduces an author‑in‑the‑loop collaborative audit system for reproducibility checks during peer review, where authors explicitly declare reproduction instructions via a structured checklist. An AI agent uses these declarations to investigate and assess reproducibility, while human reviewers approve requests and decide on issue resolution. The system was deployed on 36 conference papers, identifying 20 issues that were subsequently resolved, and the study examined how different checklist conditions affected the agent’s assessment.