To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

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. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.