Organizations: Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA · Center for Science of Science and Innovation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA · Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA · Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA · Goizueta Business School, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA · Department of Information Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Collaboration is the defining mode of modern science, yet its core mechanism -- feedback -- remains hard to observe, difficult to scale, and unequally distributed. Here we test whether large language models (LLMs) can contribute to this hidden but vital practice and reallocate scientific feedback, an essential yet scarce resource for knowledge production. In a global large-scale randomized field experiment, we delivered customized LLM-generated feedback for over 31,000 arXiv preprints across 150 fields and more than 45,000 researchers from 133 geographic regions. Relative to controls, authors who received feedback had a significantly higher likelihood of revising their manuscripts, corresponding to a 12.55% relative increase over the baseline revision rate. Exposure to AI feedback also increased authors' subsequent use of LLM tools in their future papers, suggesting longer-run shifts in scientific practice. These effects were strongest among authors from non-English-dominant research regions, manuscripts less embedded in the scholarly literature, and teams with lower h-indexes and earlier career stages, consistent with the idea that AI feedback may provide the greatest benefit where access to timely critique is otherwise limited. Together, these findings provide causal evidence that structured AI-based interventions can transform access to scientific feedback from a largely private advantage into a more widely distributed resource, with broader implications for productivity, equity, and capacity across the global research system.
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled AI systems to assist scientific research and peer review. However, an essential capability for reliable AI-assisted scientific workflows remains underexplored: verifying whether reviewer feedback leads to meaningful and evidence-supported manuscript improvements. We introduce AutoSupervision, which evaluates whether scientific manuscript revisions genuinely address reviewer concerns through grounded evidence. AutoSupervision leverages transparent peer-review records as a natural source of supervision, where reviewer comments specify scientific concerns, author responses describe claimed resolutions, and revised manuscripts provide evidence of changes. Given reviewer comments, author responses, and revised manuscripts, models must characterize reviewer concerns, determine whether concerns have been addressed, and identify supporting manuscript evidence. We construct AutoSupervision from 56,000 Nature Communications articles and corresponding review records. Then we conducted experiments on LLMs, the ablation study, and the case study. Our results show that while LLMs perform well in characterizing reviewer concerns, with GPT-5.5 achieving a score of 0.754, evidence-based verification remains the primary bottleneck, with the best-performing model reaching only 0.501.
Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.
Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.