APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System
Organizations: Meta Superintelligence Labs · University of Edinburgh
Abstract
Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.
Figures & tables
| Category | # Paper | Percentage |
| Oral | 427 | 1.6% |
| Spotlight | 1,451 | 5.4% |
| Poster | 11,344 | 42.4% |
| Reject | 8,916 | 33.4% |
| Withdrawn | 4,569 | 17.1% |
| Total | 26,707 | 100% |
| Category | # Papers | Percentage |
| 3/3 participants preferred | 174 | 47.8% |
| 2/3 participants preferred | 113 | 31.0% |
| 1/3 participants preferred | 65 | 17.9% |
| 0/3 participants preferred | 12 | 3.3% |
| Total | 364 | 100% |
| Paper Type | ‘Accept’ | ‘Borderline’ | ‘Reject’ |
| APRES w/o | 1.02 | 1.24 | 1.21 |
| APRES w/o MultiAIDE | 1.13 | 1.46 | 1.34 |
| APRES | 1.67 | 3.33 | 2.98 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Criterion | Key Questions |
| Clarity | Is the text easy to read and understand? Is the language precise and unambiguous? Does the text flow logically? Is the core message communicated effectively? |
| Correctness | Does one version contain apparent technical inaccuracies or oversimplifications (we guarantee that the contribution of both papers is the same). |
| Contribution & Impact | Does one version do a better job of framing the paper’s contribution? Is the significance of the work made more apparent and compelling in one over the other? |
| Presentation & Style | Is the grammar, spelling, and punctuation flawless? Is the tone appropriately academic and professional? Is the text concise, or is it unnecessarily verbose? |
Scientific Communication
Scientific communication studies how research is written, shared, translated, visualized, and understood by specialist and public audiences.
See all 50 papers