Automated Peer Review

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

5 papers in the last four weeks, level with the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 66

Jun 8, 2026cs.CL

Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community

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.

Lin Li, Qi Zhang, Xander Davies +2

OATML, University of Oxford · MBZUAI

Adversarial Attacks Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review Generative AI Evaluation

Jun 4, 2026cs.CL

EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation

Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often produce generic comments with insufficient evidence support and weak source traceability, while complex multi-agent systems incur high inference costs. To address these challenges, we propose EGTR-Review, an Evidence-Grounded and Traceable Review Generation framework via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation. EGTR-Review first constructs a multi-agent teacher that performs structure-aware paper decomposition, key-element extraction, external scholarly evidence retrieval, evidence-state labeling, verification reasoning, and review synthesis. It then distills both intermediate reasoning trajectories and final review comments into a lightweight student model through task-prefix-driven multi-task learning. An evidence-weighted objective further reduces the influence of weak, missing, or non-verifiable supervision. Experiments on public peer-review datasets show that EGTR-Review (Student) outperforms strong prompt-based, fine-tuned, and structured/agentic baselines across automatic metrics, LLM-as-Judge evaluation, and human evaluation, while maintaining strong factual grounding and source traceability with substantially lower token consumption and inference time. Our code, prompts, configurations, and sample data are available on GitHub.

Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu +2

Department of Information Management, Peking University · PKU-WUHAN Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University

Multi-Agent LLM Systems Evidence-Grounded Generation Automated Peer Review

Jun 3, 2026econ.GN

Can AI Refute Economic Theory? Evidence from Beyond the Knowledge Cutoff

Can artificial intelligence (AI) refute economic theory? I document experiments in which I asked several AI models (Gemini, Refine, Claude, and ChatGPT) to check the correctness of four published papers in economic theory, each containing an error that I helped identify or correct. ChatGPT Pro performed best, occasionally constructing counterexamples and corrected proofs, while other models fared worse. However, no model located a true error without substantial human guidance, and data contamination complicates interpretation. I argue that a competent human paired with a frontier model can outperform current peer review, but AI cannot yet refute economic theory on its own.

Alexis Akira Toda

Department of Economics, Emory University.

Human-in-the-Loop AI Automated Peer Review LLM Mathematical Reasoning

May 31, 2026cs.AI

Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

Di Wu

University of Central Florida Department of ECE Orlando, FL, USA

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review Generative AI Evaluation

May 29, 2026cs.DL

ReviewGuard: Aligning LLM-Assisted Peer Review with Long-Term Scientific Impact

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.

Abdur Rasool, Xiaohui Huang, Yanqing Hu +1

Department of Statistics and Data Science Southern University of Science and Technology Shenzhen 518055, China

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.LG

SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones?

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Sy-Tuyen Ho, Minghui Liu, Huy Nghiem +1

University of Maryland, College Park

AI for Science LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Reliability Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.LG

Feedback-to-Rubrics: Can We Learn Expert Criteria from Inline Comments?

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for writing and review support, but their usefulness depends on context-dependent criteria, such as expert preferences or organization-specific conventions, that are often tacit, undocumented, and difficult to elicit directly. We propose a problem setting for learning reusable natural-language rubrics from accumulated inline comments on artifacts such as human-written or LLM-generated drafts. Our method infers rubrics from these comments and iteratively refines them by observing comment-wise mismatches between rubric-conditioned predictions and reference comments. We evaluate the proposed method in real-world review settings and in controlled settings with reference rubrics. These results show that inline comments can be distilled into reusable rubrics that support comment prediction, rubric understanding, and automatic artifact revision.

Kotaro Yoshida, So Kuroki, Yuki Imajuku +4

Sakana AI · Institute of Science Tokyo

Rubric-Based Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 28, 2026cs.AI

PRAIB: Peer Review AI Benchmark of Behaviour of LLM-Assisted Reviewing

The growing number of submitted papers has motivated the exploration of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a means to support and augment the peer review process, particularly in terms of improving its speed and scalability. Yet, it remains unknown whether LLMs engage with scientific manuscripts in the same manner as human reviewers, or whether they merely produce review-looking text. To address this, we introduce the Peer Review AI Benchmark (PRAIB), a novel framework comprising thoroughly defined metrics that measure review specificity, style, and behavior of engagement. To complement the PRAIB framework, we conduct a large-scale empirical study leveraging a dataset of 11,000 reviews generated by five proprietary and open-source models for 1,000 ICLR and NeurIPS papers. Spanning the 2021--2025 period, these machine-generated reviews are compared against original human feedback across diverse prompting strategies to identify systematic behavioral divergences. Our analysis reveals that the generated reviews diverge significantly from feedback provided by human reviewers: LLM ratings are less variable, positively biased, and overconfident, and their cross-reference patterns are model-dependent and distinct from human norms. Furthermore, when evaluated through PRAIB, we observe that LLMs tend to generate longer, more complex reviews, yet frequently overlook the atomic weaknesses noted by human reviewers. By characterizing where and how LLMs reviewing behavior departs from human norms, PRAIB provides the community with a diagnostic tool for identifying which aspects of the review process LLMs can reliably support today and which require further development before deployment.

Krzysztof Żurawicki, Julia Farganus, Arkadiusz Gaweł +2

Department of Artificial Intelligence Wrocław University of Science and Technology

LLM Evaluation Scholarly Peer Review Language Model Bias Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Review Arcade: On the Human Alignment and Gameability of LLM Reviews

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Hans Ole Hatzel, Sebastian Steindl, Jan Strich

Language Technology Group, University of Hamburg, Germany · OTH Amberg-Weiden, Germany · Hub of Computing and Data Science (HCDS), University of Hamburg, Germany

LLM-as-a-Judge Human-AI Agreement Automated Peer Review

May 26, 2026cs.CL

GraphReview: Scientific Paper Evaluation via LLM-Based Graph Message Passing

Scientific paper evaluation often involves not only assessing a manuscript itself, but also relating it to contemporaneous research and prior literature. However, existing LLM-based methods typically model these signals separately and lack a unified mechanism for propagating review evidence across papers. We propose

\textbf{GraphReview}

, a graph-based LLM framework that formulates paper evaluation as review-signal message passing over a semantic paper graph. The graph jointly captures intrinsic quality, synchronic links among contemporaneous papers, and diachronic links to prior work. LLMs are used to estimate node-level quality priors and generate edge-level comparative evidence through pairwise paper comparisons, while Personalized PageRank integrates review signals for quality ranking, decision prediction, and review generation. To produce higher-quality graph evidence, we propose reward-induced maximum likelihood objectives for training the LLM backbones. Experiments show that GraphReview consistently outperforms the strongest baseline, achieving average improvements of 29.7% on decision and ranking metrics, including gains of 23.7% in Accuracy and 57.6% in Spearman's

ρ

. It also produces higher-quality review texts and generalizes effectively across time periods and conference venues. The code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/GraphReview.

Pujun Zheng, Wanying Ren, Jiacheng Yao +2

School of Economics and Management, East China Normal University · Institute of Big Data, Fudan University

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

May 26, 2026cs.CL

E3: Issue-Level Backtesting for Automated Research Critique

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

Yashwardhan Chaudhuri, Sanyam Jain, Paridhi Mundra

Automated Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 26, 2026cs.AI

TADDLE: A Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews

LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or scores quality with features designed for human-written reviews; no prior system detects deficiencies in LLM-generated reviews at the level of individual defect types. To bridge the gap, we introduce TADDLE, a Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews, together with the first expert-annotated benchmark for this task. Our benchmark comprises 1,800 reviews on 50 ICLR 2025 papers, multi-label-annotated by 18 domain experts against a taxonomy of six defect categories (plus a non-deficient label). TADDLE decomposes detection into four specialized analysis tools -- Verify, Correct, Complete, and Transform -- orchestrated by an agent; an integrator synthesizes their outputs into binary and multi-label classifications via two-stage semi-supervised learning. Extensive experiments show that TADDLE performs strongly on both binary detection and the multi-label classification task. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/AquariusAQ/TADDLE.

Hanqi Duan, Xiang Li

East China Normal University

Tool-Augmented Language Model Agents LLM Agents Automated Peer Review

May 26, 2026cs.CL

PRISM: A Multi-Dimensional Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Peer Reviewers

The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, especially compared to human reviewers at catching scientific gaps, remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce PRISM (Peer Review Intelligence via Structured Multi-dimensional assessment), a benchmarking framework that evaluates review quality across four dimensions: Depth of Analysis, Novelty Assessment,Flaw Identification & Major Issues Prioritization, and Multi-dimensional Constructiveness. Unlike most existing evaluations based on surface-level metrics like ROUGE and BLEU, or unconstrained LLM-as-a-judge prompting that conflates fluency with rigor, PRISM grounds each dimension in argument mining, retrieval-augmented verification, and consensus-based scoring. We apply PRISM to benchmark five leading automated reviewer systems and human reviewers on a stratified corpus of reviews from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. The results reveal that LLMs can match or beat human reviewers on individual dimensions: comparable depth of analysis, stronger novelty verification, and highly accurate critique prioritization. However, no single system consistently matches the balanced performance of the human baseline across all dimensions at once. Each exhibits a distinct specialization profile with characteristic blind spots -- failure modes that aggregate metrics miss entirely. The implication is that LLM reviewers are best understood as targeted supplements to human review, effective within specific dimensions, but unreliable as standalone replacements. Our demo and key results can be found at https://khanhthanhdev.github.io/prism-page/.

Ngoc Phan Phuoc Loc, Toan Huynh La Viet, Thanh Tran Khanh +8

VinUniversity · University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign · University of Notre Dame +1

LLM Evaluation Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

May 25, 2026cs.CL

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 Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Adversarial Attacks on LLMs LLM Reliability Language Model Bias Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 24, 2026stat.AP

Rejoinder: The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review

This article is the rejoinder to ``The ICML 2023 Ranking Experiment: Examining Author Self-Assessment in ML/AI Peer Review,'' to appear in the Journal of the American Statistical Association with discussion. To address the practical and theoretical points raised by the discussants, we organize our response around four core themes: (i) formulating peer review as a statistical estimation problem; (ii) mitigating equity and strategic concerns in the deployment of the Isotonic Mechanism; (iii) incorporating complementary signals such as reviewer rankings and structured metadata; and (iv) exploring a human-centered framework for peer review in the era of generative AI.

Buxin Su, Jiayao Zhang, Natalie Collina +6

*University of Pennsylvania. · †University of Wisconsin–Madison. · ‡Associate Chair of ICML 2023. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. +2

Mechanism Design Scholarly Peer Review Human-AI Decision Making Automated Peer Review

May 20, 2026cs.CL

On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists

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.

Seungone Kim, Dongkeun Yoon, Kiril Gashteovski +55

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review Generative AI Evaluation

May 15, 2026cs.CY

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

Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and consent. The final dataset included 56 analyzable responses from authors of 40 papers; closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, and 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers. This perceived added value translated into action: 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version. However, the authors did not treat the AI review as equivalent to a human review. They generally trusted it less than the human reviews and found human feedback clearer, even though 25.0% described at least some human reviews as not very useful. Reported problems with the AI review were usually limited: 51.8% reported minor inaccuracies, while 16.1% reported clearly incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant comments. Support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool: 96.4% said they would use AI as an internal review tool before future submissions, 89.3% preferred advance notice that AI would be used in review, and 76.8% favored explicit consent before use.

César Leblanc, Lukas Picek

École Normale Supérieure, Paris, France. · Sorbonne University, Paris, France. · University of West Bohemia, Plzeň, Czech Republic. +1

Scholarly Peer Review Trust in AI Automated Peer Review Human Oversight of AI Human-AI Collaboration

May 11, 2026cs.CL

When Reviews Disagree: Fine-Grained Contradiction Analysis in Scientific Peer Reviews

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.

Sandeep Kumar, Yash Kamdar, Abid Hossain +3

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Patna, India · School of Computer Engineering, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

May 8, 2026cs.CL

CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI Reviewers

Despite the rapid development of AI reviewers, evaluating such systems remains challenging: metrics favor overlap with human reviews over correctness. However, since human reviews often cover only a subset of salient issues and sometimes contain mistakes, they are unreliable as gold references. To address this, we build category-specific benchmark subsets and skip evaluation when the corresponding human reviews are missing to strengthen Completeness. We also leverage reviewer--author--meta-review discussions as expert annotations and filter unreliable reviews accordingly to strengthen Correctness. Finally, we introduce CoCoReviewBench, which curates 3,900 papers from ICLR and NeurIPS to enable reliable and fine-grained evaluation of AI reviewers. Analysis shows that AI reviewers remain limited in correctness and are prone to hallucinations, and highlights reasoning models as more effective reviewers, motivating further directions for improving AI reviewers. Benchmarks and models are available at https://github.com/hexuandeng/CoCoReviewBench.

Hexuan Deng, Xiaopeng Ke, Yichen Li +6

Institute of Computing and Intelligence, Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China +2

LLM Evaluation Automated Peer Review

May 6, 2026cs.CR

Shattering the Echo Chamber: Hidden Safeguards in Manuscripts Against the AI Takeover of Peer Review

As LLMs become increasingly capable, editorial boards and program committees are growing concerned about reviewers who fully outsource peer review to commercial chatbots. This concern stems from prior findings that current chatbots lack the independent critical thinking and depth of reasoning required to assess scientific novelty. One promising direction for mitigating this concern is to embed hidden instructions into manuscripts that disrupt or alter chatbot-generated reviews. However, existing methods remain intuitive and fragile, as they typically rely on homogeneous payloads injected in an inter-stream manner, rendering them susceptible to sanitization or neutralization. In this paper, we identify End-to-End Review Outsourcing as an emerging threat and propose IntraGuard, a black-box, venue-agnostic defense framework grounded in the structural--visual decoupling inherent to the PDF. Designed for committee-side deployment, IntraGuard supports both explicit strategies that trigger refusal or warning signals, and implicit strategies that embed predefined textual markers into the generated review. These strategies can be deployed via any of three intra-stream injection mechanisms, each of which seamlessly embeds heterogeneous defensive text objects within the PDF's underlying structure without altering its visual presentation. Extensive evaluations across 7 real-world commercial chatbot settings and 12 venues spanning diverse disciplines show that IntraGuard achieves a defense success rate of up to 84%, while preserving peer-review invariance for human reviewers. IntraGuard is lightweight and hardware-independent, incurring an average overhead of only one second per manuscript on a commodity personal computer. We further evaluate 11 adaptive attacks spanning manuscript sanitization and instruction interference, and discuss the implications of constructing ensemble defenses.

Oubo Ma, Ruixiao Lin, Jiahao Chen +3

Zhejiang University

LLM Security Indirect Prompt Injection Prompt Injection Defense Automated Peer Review

May 4, 2026cs.AI

Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

Joachim Baumann, Jiaxin Pei, Sanmi Koyejo +1

Stanford University · Bocconi University

LLM-as-a-Judge Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review Language Model Robustness

May 4, 2026cs.DL

ARA: Agentic Reproducibility Assessment For Scalable Support Of Scientific Peer-Review

Scientific peer review increasingly struggles to assess reproducibility at the scale and complexity of modern research output. Evaluating reproducibility requires reconstructing experimental dependencies, methodological choices, data flows, and result-generating procedures, which often exceeds what human reviewers can provide. Agentic Reproducibility Assessment (ARA) formalizes reproducibility assessment as a structured reasoning task over scientific documents. Given a paper, ARA extracts a directed workflow graph linking sources, methods, experiments, and outputs, then evaluates its reconstructability using structural and content-based scores for reproducibility assessments. Experiments on 213 ReScience C articles - the largest cross-domain benchmark of human-validated computational reproducibility studies considered to date - demonstrate ARA's generalizability and consistent workflow reconstruction and assessment across LLMs, model temperatures, and scientific domains. ARA achieves ~61% accuracy on three benchmarks, and the highest accuracy reported on ReproBench (60.71% vs. 36.84%) and GoldStandardDB (61.68% vs. 43.56%), highlighting its potential to complement human review at scale and enabling next-generation peer review. Code and Data available: https://github.com/AndresLaverdeMarin/agentic_reproducibility_assessment.

Kevin Riehl, Andres L. Marin, Nikofors Zacharof +6

European Commission, Joint Research Centre · Ideas Forward

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Scientific Reproducibility Automated Peer Review

Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.

Sihong Wu, Owen Jiang, Yilun Zhao +5

Yale University · New York University · TCS Research

LLM Evaluation Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

Apr 29, 2026cs.CL

SafeReview: Defending LLM-based Review Systems Against Adversarial Hidden Prompts

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic peer review, their vulnerability to adversarial hidden prompts, i.e., adversarial instructions embedded in submissions to manipulate outcomes, poses a critical threat to scholarly integrity. We propose SafeReview, a co-evolutionary adversarial training framework for defending LLM-based peer review systems against such attacks. SafeReview jointly trains a Generator model to create sophisticated attack prompts and a Defender model to preserve review integrity under adversarial manipulation. The Generator is optimized to produce increasingly effective prompt injections, while the Defender is strengthened through preference-based training to maintain consistent reviews between clean and attacked submissions. Experimental results show that SafeReview improves robustness against adaptive prompt injection attacks, better preserves paper ranking under attack, and generalizes across attacker architectures compared with static defenses. These results demonstrate the potential of co-evolutionary training as a foundation for securing LLM-assisted peer review.

Yuan Xin, Yixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu +5

1CISPA · 2Westlake University · 3Southern University of Science and Technology +1

Adversarial Training Adversarial Prompt Generation Adversarial Robustness of Language Models Prompt Injection Attacks Automated Peer Review

Apr 28, 2026cs.CR

Making AI-Assisted Grant Evaluation Auditable without Exposing the Model

Public agencies are beginning to consider large language models (LLMs) as decision-support tools for grant evaluation. This creates a practical governance problem: the model and scoring rubric should not be exposed in a way that allows applicants to optimize against them, yet the evaluation process must remain auditable, contestable, and accountable. We propose a TEE-based architecture that helps reconcile these requirements through remote attestation. The architecture allows an external verifier to check which model, rubric, prompt template, and input representation were used, without exposing model weights, proprietary scoring logic, or intermediate reasoning to applicants or infrastructure operators. The main artifact is an attested evaluation bundle: a signed, timestamped record linking the original submission hash, the canonical input hash, the model-and-rubric measurement, and the evaluation output. The paper also considers a scenario-specific prompt injection risk: applicant-controlled documents may contain hidden or indirect instructions intended to influence the LLM evaluator. We therefore include a canonicalization and sanitization layer that normalizes document representations and records suspicious transformations before inference. We position the design relative to confidential AI inference, attestable AI audits, zero-knowledge machine learning, algorithmic accountability, and AI-assisted peer review. The resulting claim is deliberately narrow: remote attestation does not prove that an evaluation is fair or scientifically correct, but it can make part of the evaluation process externally verifiable.

Kemal Bicakci

Informatics Institute, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Türkiye · Securify Information Technology and Security Training Consulting Inc., Ankara, Türkiye

LLM Auditing Privacy-Preserving ML Automated Peer Review

Apr 27, 2026cs.LG

The Last Human-Written Paper: Agent-Native Research Artifacts

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.

Jiachen Liu, Jiaxin Pei, Jintao Huang +34

University of Michigan · Stanford University · Ohio State University +22

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Scientific Communication Scientific Reproducibility Automated Peer Review Autonomous Research Agents

Apr 27, 2026cs.CL

PeeriScope: A Multi-Faceted Framework for Evaluating Peer Review Quality

The increasing scale and variability of peer review in scholarly venues has created an urgent need for systematic, interpretable, and extensible tools to assess review quality. We present PeeriScope, a modular platform that integrates structured features, rubric-guided large language model assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality along multiple dimensions. Designed for openness and integration, PeeriScope provides both a public interface and a documented API, supporting practical deployment and research extensibility. The demonstration illustrates its use for reviewer self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing, and it enables the continued development of quality evaluation methods within scientific peer review. PeeriScope is available both as a live demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peeriscope and via API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peeriscope.

Sajad Ebrahimi, Soroush Sadeghian, Ali Ghorbanpour +6

Reviewerly · Reviewerly, UC Berkeley · Reviewerly, University of Toronto

Scholarly Peer Review Automated Peer Review

Apr 26, 2026cs.AI

When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

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.

Jialiang Wang, Yuchen Liu, Hang Xu +7

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR 999077, China · Key Laboratory of New Generation Artificial Intelligence Technology and Its Interdisciplinary Applications, School of Computer Science and Engeering, Southeast University, Nanjing 210000, China · These authors contributed equally +2

LLM Auditing Adversarial Attacks on LLMs Prompt Injection Attacks Automated Peer Review

Apr 21, 2026cs.AI

What Makes a Good AI Review? Concern-Level Diagnostics for AI Peer Review

Evaluating AI-generated reviews by verdict agreement is widely recognized as insufficient, yet current alternatives rarely audit which concerns a system identifies, how it prioritizes them, or whether those priorities align with the review rationale that shaped the final assessment. We propose concern alignment, a diagnostic framework that evaluates AI reviews at the concern level rather than only at the verdict level. The framework's core data structure is the match graph, a bipartite alignment between official and AI-generated concerns annotated with match type, severity, and post-rebuttal treatment. From this artifact we derive an evaluation ladder that moves from binary accuracy to concern detection, verdict-stratified behavior, decision-aware calibration, and rebuttal-aware decomposition. In a pilot study of four public AI review systems evaluated in six configurations, concern-level analysis suggests that detection alone does not determine review quality; calibration is often the binding constraint. Systems detect non-trivial fractions of official concerns yet most mark 25--55% of concerns on accepted papers as decisive, where, under our operationalization, no official concern on accepted papers was treated as a decisive blocker. Identical overall verdict accuracy can conceal reject-heavy behavior versus low-recall profiles, and low full-review false decisive rates can partly reflect concern dilution rather than calibrated prioritization. Most systems do not emit a native accept/reject, and inferring it from review tone is method-sensitive, reinforcing the need for concern-level diagnostics that remain stable across inference choices. The contribution is a reusable evaluation framework for auditing which concerns AI reviewers identify, how they weight them, and whether those priorities align with the review rationale that informed the paper's final assessment.

Ming Jin

Bradley Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering Virginia Tech

Automated Peer Review Generative AI Evaluation Language Model Auditing

Apr 21, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Bowen Li, Haochen Ma, Yuxin Wang +5

College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Innovation Institute, Shanghai, China

LLM Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation Automated Peer Review