arXiv AI By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 4

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

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 AI
Aug 5

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

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.

By Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber, Kry\v{s}tof Ol\'ik, Georg Groh
arXiv AI
3d ago

Policy-Conditioned AI-Use Detection: An Evidentiary Framework for Academic Publishing

The paper introduces a policy‑conditioned AI‑use detection framework for academic publishing, arguing that traditional AI detection tools misalign with venue rules by merely identifying AI‑generated text. Instead, the proposed system treats the governing policy as an explicit input, generating hypotheses, evidence, calibration, and uncertainty rather than binary verdicts. It outlines how to benchmark compliance, evaluate true positive rates at venue‑specified false positive thresholds, and emphasizes the need for structured disclosure, tool routing, and contestable findings.

By Jairo Diaz-Rodriguez, Mumin Jia