cs.DLOct 22, 2026

Major Revision, Minor Accountability: LLMs as Reviewers of Published Articles in Top-Tier Journals

Authors: Bastien Le Guellec, Su Hwan Kim, Raphael Bentegeac, Aghiles Hamroun

Organizations: CHU Lille, Lille, France · Technical University of Munich (TUM), Munich, Germany

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

With the growth of scientific output, the peer review system is approaching a breaking point: reviewers are increasingly hard to secure, and turnaround times lengthen accordingly. LLM-assisted or LLM-generated peer review has been proposed as a remedy, but how such models would treat manuscripts already published in top-tier journals, the closest thing the current system has to a gold standard of scientific validity, is not known. Here we assembled a corpus of 200 articles, each released under a CC BY 4.0 license and published in 2026, from 20 general-science, life-science, and clinical-medicine journals including Nature, Science, and Cell, and asked four current LLMs (two proprietary, two open-weight) to produce independent peer-review reports of each one under a blinded protocol. Their decisions were overwhelmingly harsh and starkly inconsistent with each other: 605 of 800 reviews (75.6%) recommended major revision or rejection, but the rate at which any single model did so ranged from 17.5% to 100% (p < 0.001), disagreement on manuscripts that had, by construction, already survived real editorial review at the journals in question. When the same manuscripts were doctored with one deliberately planted, field-specific methodological or statistical flaw, detection rates varied from 17.0% to 60.5% across models (p < 0.001). Recommending revision for papers that had already passed editorial review (low specificity) while missing flaws deliberately placed in front of them (low sensitivity), these models produce output that should be read for what it is: an uneven, framing- and model-dependent signal.

More in this topic

Scholarly Peer Review

Scholarly peer review studies how experts evaluate research, make publication decisions, and improve the fairness, reliability, and transparency of those processes.

See all 78 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList
May 25, 2026

LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic peer review, yet their reliability, alignment with human judgment, and robustness to adversarial attacks remain poorly understood. We present a systematic benchmark of LLM-as-a-Reviewer on 898 papers stratified from NeurIPS and ICLR, evaluating 12 LLMs along three axes: rating calibration, divergence from human reviewers, and resistance to prompt injection embedded via an invisible font-mapping attack. We find that LLMs systematically overrate weaker submissions and diverge from humans in topical emphasis, under-flagging Clarity and over-flagging Reproducibility, while producing reviews two to three times longer with lower lexical diversity and a more standardized vocabulary. Prompt injection remains highly effective. Simple hidden instructions can promote low-scoring papers to acceptance-level ratings in a substantial fraction of cases, with effectiveness varying sharply across model families. While LLMs offer utility in structuring evaluations, their integration into peer review requires safeguards against both intrinsic biases and adversarial risks.

Lingyao Li, Junjie Xiong, Changjia Zhu +5

University of South Florida · Missouri University of Science and Technology · University of Alabama +3

LLM EvaluationLLM-as-a-JudgeAdversarial Attacks on LLMsLLM ReliabilityLanguage Model Bias EvaluationAutomated Peer Review
AskPDF
Jun 23, 2026

LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

Thi Huyen Nguyen, Zahra Ahmadi

L3S Research Center, Leibniz University Hannover Hannover, Germany · Peter L. Reichertz Institute for Medical Informatics of TU Braunschweig and Hannover Medical School Lower Saxony Center for AI and Causal Methods in Medicine (CAIMed) Hannover, Germany

Scholarly Peer ReviewLLM SecurityLLM ReliabilityAutomated Peer ReviewLanguage Model Robustness
AskPDF
Aug 4, 2026

AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality

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.

Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber +2

Social Computing Research Group Technical University of Munich Boltzmannstraße 3, 85748, Garching, Germany

LLM EvaluationScholarly Peer ReviewAutomated Peer ReviewGenerative AI Evaluation
AskPDF