arXiv:2607. 26066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 12071v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas.
arXiv:2604. 15145v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task.
arXiv:2605. 03202v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis.
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.
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: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.