Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews

The growing scale of academic peer review has motivated the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as review assistants, yet LLMs can generate fluent but unsupported claims that undermine review reliability. Existing hallucination benchmarks are not designed for peer review, where verification requires grounding claims in long, technical papers. We introduce HalluPeer, a benchmark for detecting hallucinations in scientific peer reviews, providing aligned triples of paper content, human-written reviews, and hallucination-injected reviews, annotated for detection, classification, and localization. Our pipeline induces a peer-review-specific hallucination taxonomy, identifies review contexts, and injects hallucinations with automated filtering. Experiments on 12K papers and 38K reviews show that existing detectors struggle to separate hallucinations from legitimate critique, while evaluation on authentic reviews demonstrates that HalluPeer-defined hallucination patterns occur in real peer reviews, highlighting the critical need for source-aware verification. Our project page can be found in https://github.com/Lin-TzuLing/HalluPeer.git

The increasing scale and variability of peer review in scholarly venues has created an urgent need for systematic, interpretable, and extensible tools to assess review quality. We present PeeriScope, a modular platform that integrates structured features, rubric-guided large language model assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality along multiple dimensions. Designed for openness and integration, PeeriScope provides both a public interface and a documented API, supporting practical deployment and research extensibility. The demonstration illustrates its use for reviewer self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing, and it enables the continued development of quality evaluation methods within scientific peer review. PeeriScope is available both as a live demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peeriscope and via API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peeriscope.

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).