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.
By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi
arXiv:2605.26911v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and...
By Hanqi Duan, Xiang Li
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
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.
The paper introduces Self‑Conditioning, an unsupervised, information‑theoretic estimator that measures the amount of external information in peer reviews. It compares the likelihood of a review under its original production context with the likelihood when that context is augmented by hints extracted from the review itself. On the IntelLabs benchmark, Self‑Conditioning can perfectly distinguish fully‑delegated reviews from machine‑polished ones, remains largely insensitive to surface rewriting, and shows that increased external input drives scores toward human‑like values, unlike standard ATD baselines.
By Matthieu Dubois, Pablo Piantanida, Fran\c{c}ois Yvon
The paper presents an explainable hate‑speech detection framework that combines DistilBERT embeddings, a Bi‑LSTM network, and an attention mechanism to capture contextual and sequential information. It uses LIME to highlight influential text features, providing transparency in predictions. Evaluated on two benchmark datasets for both binary and multi‑class tasks, the model achieves F1‑scores of 96.78%–99.53% for binary classification and 94.99%–97.00% for multi‑class classification, outperforming existing baselines.
By Rameesha Zia, Muhammad Shahid Iqbal Malik