The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
By Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu, Xiaochen Wang, Jimin Wang
arXiv:2607. 22553v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Peer review is an essential process in scientific research, yet the growing workload has made its automation increasingly necessary.
By Haowen Li, Yoichi Ishibashi, Masafumi Oyamada
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.
By Zexing Zhang, Jichao Li, Tianyang Lei, Yude Fu, Yang Kewei
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: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.
By Qianli Ma, Chang Guo, Zhiheng Tian, Siyu Wang, Jipeng Xiao, Yuanhao Yue, Zhipeng Zhang