IntraGuard: Committee-Side Defenses Against Review Outsourcing to Commercial Chatbots
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The article reports that in July 2025, 18 arXiv manuscripts contained hidden instructions designed to manipulate AI‑assisted peer review, such as covert commands to give only positive reviews. These prompts were concealed using white text and microscopic fonts, and the authors’ reactions ranged from withdrawal to defending the practice as a test of reviewer misuse of large language models. The study identifies four types of hidden prompts, critiques the ineffectiveness of honeypot defenses, and highlights inconsistent publisher policies while calling for controlled AI integration and harmonized guidelines in academic evaluation.
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:2606. 10159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage.
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:2606. 09700v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-powered content moderation systems have become a critical defense against harmful online content.
arXiv:2609.24801v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in production systems, raising concerns about their exposure to adversarial manipulation throu...