A Missing Piece for Trustworthy AI Reviewers: From Benchmarking Rhetorical Robustness to SciCore Review

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

LLMs increasingly assist scientific peer review. This creates a feedback loop when generated reviews enter the training data of future LLMs. While recursive training has been studied broadly, its effects on scientific judgments remain poorly understood. We empirically study this effect in a controlled setting by varying synthetic-review exposure while fixing other training conditions. After one recursive step, increasing exposure from $0\%$ to $100\%$ makes recommendation ratings more concentrated, independently generated reviews of the same paper about $11\%$ more similar, and reviews across different papers about $5\%$ less diverse. A further step of recursive training amplifies homogenization when synthetic supervision is reintroduced. We characterize this task-specific phenomenon as $\textbf{scientific-judgment collapse}$. We also explore a training-free method using contrastive activation steering with a limited reference reviews. Controlled experiments show a partial recovery in recommendation agreement and judgment diversity across different papers, but not among independently generated reviews of the same paper. To explore this approach beyond controlled experiments, we develop $\textbf{TrustReviewer}$. We train the model on a large-scale curated data and apply activation steering at inference time. On held-out papers, steering increases exact recommendation match from $73.85\%$ to $75.40\%$, compared with $73.10\%$ for OpenReviewer on the same LLM backbone, while maintaining relatively diverse scientific judgments. Our findings quantify judgment homogenization under recursive training and motivate further research on preserving judgment diversity.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.