arXiv Computation and Language
ProReviewer: Evidence-Driven Investigation for Scientific Peer Review
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 11
From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence.
arXiv AI
Sep 10
Beyond Final Decisions: A Process-Centric Benchmark for Transparent AI-Assisted Peer Review
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...
arXiv AI
Jun 6
EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 23
Peerify: Benchmarking Peer-Review Claim Verification
arXiv:2609.25046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing, yet verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by manuscript evidence remains a largely...
arXiv AI
Aug 18
FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Peer Review with Execution-Based Claim Verification
arXiv:2604. 04074v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify.
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.