Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.
Mining sentiment information from the textual content of peer review comments offers valuable insights into the scientific evaluation process. However, previous studies are often constrained by coarse-grained analysis and the lack of differentiation across review rounds. Notably, the dynamic shifts in reviewers' focus and sentiment tendencies throughout multiple review stages remain underexplored. To address this gap, the present study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments and examines their correlation with the number of review rounds. We begin by segmenting the multi-round review comments of 11,063 accepted papers from Nature Communications and identifying fine-grained review aspect clusters. A manually annotated corpus of approximately 5,000 review sentences is then constructed. Using this dataset, we train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models. Among them, the LCF-BERT-CDM model achieves the best performance, with a Macro-F1 score of 82.65%. Subsequent statistical analysis reveals a consistent trend: as the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline. Correlation analysis further indicates that aspect sentiment scores are negatively associated with the total number of review rounds. Key aspects exhibiting stronger correlations include "experiments", "research significance" and "result analysis".
Peer review is central to scientific quality control, yet it can undervalue papers that later achieve substantial citation impact. While frontier large language models have shown promise in automating aspects of peer review, they primarily mimic human reviewer preferences rather than predict long-term scientific value. We introduce ReviewGuard, a two-stage framework that aligns LLM-generated reviews with citation-based estimates of long-term scientific impact rather than contemporaneous reviewer judgments. On 20,861 AI/ML papers from OpenReview augmented with Semantic Scholar citation data, ReviewGuard achieves a Spearman correlation of \r{ho} = 0.776 with future citations on rejected-then-published papers, outperforming human reviewers (\r{ho} = 0.492) and a supervised Expert model (\r{ho} = 0.681). Under the same decision threshold, ReviewGuard flags 10.2% of high-impact rejected papers, compared with 1.8% for human reviewers, corresponding to a 5.6x improvement. Our results demonstrate that impact-aligned reinforcement learning can provide editors with a complementary signal for identifying high-potential work, without replacing human judgment.
Scientific peer reviews frequently contain conflicting expert judgments, and the increasing scale of conference submissions makes it challenging for Area Chairs and editors to reliably identify and interpret such disagreements. Existing approaches typically frame reviewer disagreement as binary contradiction detection over isolated sentence pairs, abstracting away the review-level context and obscuring differences in the severity of evaluative conflict. In this work, we introduce a fine-grained formulation of reviewer contradiction analysis that operates over full peer reviews by explicitly identifying contradiction evidence spans and assigning graded disagreement intensity scores. To support this task, we present RevCI, an expert-annotated benchmark of peer-review pairs with evidence-level contradiction annotations with graded intensity labels. We further propose IMPACT, a structured multi-agent framework that integrates aspect-conditioned evidence extraction, deliberative reasoning, and adjudication to model reviewer contradictions and their intensity. To support efficient deployment, we distill IMPACT into TIDE, a small language model that predicts contradiction evidence and intensity in a single forward pass. Experimental results show that IMPACT substantially outperforms strong single-agent and generic multi-agent baselines in both evidence identification and intensity agreement, while TIDE achieves competitive performance at significantly lower inference cost.