Scholarly Peer Review

As LLMs increasingly assist scientific writing and peer review, detecting who wrote the text is no longer sufficient: we need to determine who contributed the underlying insight. We introduce Insight Provenance, the task of identifying whether a review insight originates from a human, an LLM, or their hybrid contribution. We construct InsightProv-v0 from 4,057 scientific papers and 12,660 human reviews, simulating different levels of LLM involvement with GPT-4o, Gemini, and DeepSeek and annotating provenance at the sentence level. We show that strong performance on raw data can be misleading, as models exploit linguistic and textual-authorship shortcuts that degrade substantially under progressively debiased evaluation. We therefore propose a two-stage adversarial framework that suppresses shortcut signals while preserving provenance-relevant information. Beyond detection, extensive analyses reveal what makes intellectual authorship identifiable: paper grounding and neighboring review context provide complementary provenance signals, while human, hybrid, and AI insights systematically differ in their information sources and failure modes. Most strikingly, AI insights predominantly remain close to generic or paper-provided information, whereas human insights more often introduce external knowledge and independent judgment. These findings suggest that while wording can be rewritten by an LLM, the provenance of an idea leaves a deeper and more persistent signal.

How much of a conference accept/reject decision would change if the same paper were reviewed by a different set of reviewers? Running a second independent program committee is the gold standard for answering this, but it is prohibitively expensive: done only twice (NeurIPS 2014 and 2021). We build an observational estimator of this quantity from public review data alone, calibrate it twice, and apply it to nine years of ICLR (2017-2025; 36,113 papers, 134,912 reviews). The estimator decomposes scores with a Bayesian ordered-probit model into paper quality and reviewer noise, maps scores to decisions with a logistic model, and simulates two independent committees (posterior draws B=1,000; committee sizes k=2,3,4). Estimated disagreement rates are 23-30% at k=2 and 18-24% at k=4; 30-50% of accepted papers would be rejected. External calibration: at the NeurIPS 2021 reviewer-count caliber (k=3), the simulated 2021 disagreement rate is 23.3% [21.7%, 25.0%] vs. reported 23.0% (bias +0.3pp); accept precision and committee correlation agree within 5pp and 0.04. Internal calibration: on 18,740 papers with 4+ reviews, random model-free 2+2 reviewer splits agree with the k=2 simulation within 1pp in 2018 and 2021-2025. Longitudinally, we find no robust time trend in reviewer noise over 2017-2025. The high accepted-paper flip rates of 2020 and 2021 have distinct mechanisms: the 2020 four-point scale compressed scores (23.7% of papers had zero within-paper variance), and a counterfactual shows coarsening the scale raises disagreement by about 7pp; 2021 instead combined the lowest signal-to-noise ratio in the sample with the most threshold-crowded acceptances. For the LLM era, a 2023 breakpoint test on within-paper score variance finds no break, but the design has almost no power, and no post-2022 review text or confidence data exist, so no LLM attribution is attempted.

Scientific progress emerges from a longitudinal ecosystem in which researchers, institutions, funding agencies, collaboration networks, and the scientific literature co-evolve. As AI becomes increasingly involved throughout the scientific research cycle, understanding these interconnected and evolving processes becomes increasingly important. We introduce SciUtopia, a persistent, closed-loop LLM-agent simulation framework for studying academic research ecosystems. SciUtopia models interconnected scientific processes such as research-direction choice, collaboration, submission, peer review, resubmission, citation, funding, and researcher attrition, while maintaining evolving states across simulated years. Its configurable institutional mechanisms and information channels provide a controlled testbed for matched counterfactual experiments and targeted interventions. Across 61 simulation worlds, SciUtopia simulates over 40,000 researchers from 8,000 institutions, producing around 400,000 publication decisions and 1.2 million LLM-generated peer reviews. Using these longitudinal simulations, we find that rejection-driven resubmission substantially amplifies reviewer burden beyond population growth alone, cautious exploration balances citation impact with career success and long-term topic diversity, and resource inequality can emerge even without detectable cumulative advantage from narrowly winning early funding. Code is available at https://github.com/Ahren09/ScienceUtopia.

Major venues now publish detailed rules about how authors, reviewers, and area chairs may use AI, and those rules differ by role, by task, and by what must be disclosed. AI detection, the instrument usually proposed to enforce them, estimates something else: whether an AI model wrote the text. We argue that this target is misaligned with the decisions conferences and journals face, and propose policy-conditioned AI-use detection, an evidentiary framework for assessing whether a human--AI workflow complied with a stated rule. Policy makes the governing rule an explicit input. Inference reports hypotheses, evidence, calibration regime, and uncertainty in place of verdicts such as "AI detected". Evaluation builds benchmarks from reproducible pipelines that generate compliant and non-compliant workflows, and reports true positive rate at a false positive rate the venue fixes in advance. We work the framework through peer review, where at plausible violation rates a detector at a strong operating point still flags more compliant authors than violating ones. The framework therefore also names what a venue must instrument: structured disclosure, approved-tool routing that respects reviewer confidentiality, and a path by which a finding can be contested. Under this framing a detector is not an authorship classifier but an auditable procedure with an error rate the venue fixes in advance and can defend.

Conference policies distinguish using Large Language Models (LLMs) to polish one's own review from delegating the critique, but current Artificial Text Detection (ATD) methods largely measure surface form rather than the origin of its content. We instead measure the external information carried by a review: information not explained by the reviewed paper and a generic reviewing instruction. We propose Self-Conditioning, an unsupervised information-theoretic estimator that compares the likelihood of a review under its production context with its likelihood when that context is augmented with hints extracted from the review itself. On the IntelLabs peer-review benchmark, Self-Conditioning separates fully-delegated from machine-polished reviews with AUC up to $1.0$ while remaining largely insensitive to surface rewriting. Moreover, as generators receive increasing amounts of externally-provided information, their scores move monotonically towards the human regime, unlike standard ATD baselines. High-temperature sampling can evade the estimator, but at the cost of output quality.

Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approaches typically formulate meta-review generation as a multi-document summarization task and aggregate reviewer feedback uniformly, making it difficult to determine which opinions should be prioritized under disagreement. In this paper, we study meta-review generation through reliability-aware evidence aggregation. Our framework first extracts aspect-level opinions from peer reviews and identifies conflicting evidence within each aspect. It then estimates opinion-level support and review-level quality to measure evidence reliability. Based on these signals, the framework assigns reliability-aware weights to reviewer feedback, enabling the generator to prioritize better-supported arguments while preserving diverse perspectives. Experiments demonstrate that our method consistently improves meta-review generation over strong baselines on both automatic and human evaluations, with clear gains in conflict recognition and resolution under high-conflict review scenarios. The code and implementation details are publicly available at https://github.com/Wangxz729/reliability-aware-meta-review.

An OpenReview bug in November 2025 broke anonymity at several conferences and prompted calls for open review, which motivate us to ask what shifting from blind to open would mean for authors. Analyzing over 18,000 reviewed submissions to ICLR 2026, split into de facto open and blind groups by arXiv preprint timing, we find that ratings rise with author reputation under both mechanisms, with a steeper slope under open review that is statistically significant, and that the open-blind difference is concentrated at the borderline ratings. The pattern holds across five reputation proxies (including institution, h-index, and citation count), three author-aggregation rules, and five definitions of the open window. A controlled simulation with five AI models as reviewers, holding the manuscript fixed and varying the author reputation, reproduces the effect. With claude-opus-5 as the reviewer, for example, rating rises by 0.5 points as the author moves from low to high reputation.

Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents. Existing benchmarks do not capture this setting and largely focus on explicit, information-seeking queries. We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers. We build on a simple observation: author rebuttals often include explicit references to content of the submission used to address reviewer comments, providing a high-precision annotation source. We cast grounding as a retrieval task and evaluate a wide range of retrieval methods. Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses. Our dataset exposes grounding reviewer comments as a difficult and practically important problem for scientific document understanding.

Large language models have collapsed the cost of producing lexically elaborate prose, and whether peer reviewers still reward it is a question about the evaluator, not about the text. When the association between a writing cue and review scores moves across years, the reviewers may have changed, the submissions may have changed, or both, and a regression of scores on text cannot say which. We separate the two with a frozen rater: 81,850 machine reviews of ICLR submissions from 2018 to 2025, all generated in one February-April 2025 window with one model family and one prompt, so that its year-to-year coefficients track submission composition alone and the human-minus-frozen trend difference identifies reviewer preference drift. On 32,638 submissions with 124,615 human reviews, the human coefficient on non-domain lexical complexity falls from +0.142 to -0.015 while the frozen rater moves from +0.080 to +0.082; the three-way difference-in-differences is -0.0100 (q=0.013), and forty random-wordlist placebos through the same specification centre on zero. Humans still reward sentence-length variability, which the frozen rater never registers, while the frozen rater still pays for lexical complexity at its earlier rate. Every claim is held to a double gate of false-discovery control and interval exclusion, and the findings that failed adversarial re-testing are reported. Reviewers discounted a cue whose production cost collapsed, as models of manipulable signals prescribe; an LLM judge calibrated to historical human preferences inherits the earlier schedule and drifts out of alignment while its agreement with humans on totals stays ordinary.

Generative and agentic AI are reshaping both the production and evaluation of scientific research. These developments are often studied separately, as questions of how AI can produce research and how AI can review it. We argue that this separation misses an increasingly important feature of scholarly publishing: changes on one side alter the incentives, constraints, and behavior of the other. We synthesize 230 scholarly publications and institutional records using a taxonomy of six connected dynamics: production scaling, evaluation automation, evaluation manipulation, defense mechanisms and policy responses, evasion and side effects, and long-horizon ecosystem feedback. The literature shows an emerging progression in which cheaper and faster research production increases pressure on evaluation, AI-mediated evaluation becomes more scalable and repeatable, participants can exploit evaluator regularities, and institutions respond with technical safeguards and policy controls. These responses can in turn induce evasion, redistribute errors and workload, and shape the scholarly records reused by future research and evaluation systems. Evidence is strongest for production and evaluation at scale, reproducible manipulation, and institutional response, while post-policy adaptation and artifact-level long-horizon feedback remain less directly observed. This systems view shifts attention from isolated AI capabilities toward how scholarly actors and AI systems adapt to one another over time.

AI reviewers can now produce many specific criticisms, but more criticism is not necessarily a better review. A review may miss a consequential weakness or retain an allegation that available evidence does not support. These failures require opposite corrections, yet generation-oriented systems and aggregate measures obscure the distinction. We therefore recast AI-assisted review as evidence-guided refinement of a structured concern set, with omission and overcritique treated as separate risks. Building on this formulation, we introduce EquiReview-R, which resolves existing concerns against localized evidence, searches for missing issues from independent and review-conditioned perspectives, and returns stop, continue, or defer. To expose the failure mode that motivates this design, we construct an evidence-linked trajectory corpus. Its retrospective analysis shows why revision must precede further search: nearly all concerns in a high-recall review lack a definitive evidential disposition, while an earlier refinement mechanism cannot revise them. On a frozen cohort of previously unseen papers, EquiReview-R satisfies the prespecified non-inferiority criterion for major omission, reduces major overcritique from 15.5% to 8.1%, and attains a one-sided omission upper bound of 9.9% while stopping on 52.4% of papers. Computation-matched controls, controlled pairs, and ablations show that the gain comes from revision rather than extra inference or shorter output. We release the corpus as ReviewTrace, an evidence-linked resource for studying review revision, disagreement, and provenance.

The growing scale of academic peer review has motivated the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as review assistants, yet LLMs can generate fluent but unsupported claims that undermine review reliability. Existing hallucination benchmarks are not designed for peer review, where verification requires grounding claims in long, technical papers. We introduce HalluPeer, a benchmark for detecting hallucinations in scientific peer reviews, providing aligned triples of paper content, human-written reviews, and hallucination-injected reviews, annotated for detection, classification, and localization. Our pipeline induces a peer-review-specific hallucination taxonomy, identifies review contexts, and injects hallucinations with automated filtering. Experiments on 12K papers and 38K reviews show that existing detectors struggle to separate hallucinations from legitimate critique, while evaluation on authentic reviews demonstrates that HalluPeer-defined hallucination patterns occur in real peer reviews, highlighting the critical need for source-aware verification. Our project page can be found in https://github.com/Lin-TzuLing/HalluPeer.git

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.

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.

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.

Scientific figure assessment in peer review differs fundamentally from general image quality evaluation: a figure must be visually legible, faithfully support the manuscript's claims, and communicate evidence with a clear visual hierarchy. However, if we apply traditional image assessment methods to scientific figure quality assessment, limitations emerge: classic IQA models capture perceptual quality or aesthetics but cannot judge whether a figure serves the paper's scientific argument; CLIP-based methods assess generic image-text correspondence, yet lack understanding of manuscript context; and zero-shot LLM/VLM judges, when repurposed for figure scoring, often yield overly concentrated scores with limited fusion of visual and textual evidence. We introduce an annotated dataset of 3,857 scientific figures from peer-reviewed conference papers, each rated along four peer-review-oriented dimensions: Clarity, Relevance, Informativeness, and Structure. We propose SciFigAlign, a fine-tuned multimodal scorer that grounds figure quality assessment in manuscript evidence. Given a figure crop, caption, citing paragraphs, and light paper context, SciFigAlign fine-tunes CLIP and SciBERT end-to-end with per-modality cross-attention and CubeMLP fusion, jointly optimizing SmoothL1 regression with a within-paper ranking hinge loss. Under paper-level splits, SciFigAlign achieves a macro MAE of 0.3524 and a within-paper pairwise accuracy of 81.64% on the test set with n = 396, a 59% relative error reduction over the best LLM-as-judge baseline with MAE 0.864. Ablations confirm that manuscript-grounded inputs, citing-context denoising, and ranking supervision are all critical, showing that scientific figure assessment requires learned alignment between visual content and manuscript evidence rather than prompting alone, even with state-of-the-art VLMs.

When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.

Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues. These submissions increase the burden on the peer-review system and pollute the scientific record. As part of the AAAI-26 review process, we (conference organizers) compared AAAI main-track submissions to nine other archival venues with overlapping review periods. We also searched for dual submissions within the AAAI-26 main track. We employed title+abstract similarity assessment to prioritize highly similar paper pairs for subsequent triage by an LLM-based overlap assessment tool, followed by manual review of the highest severity pairs. Manual review of such pairs led to the desk-rejection of 141 AAAI-26 main-track submissions. We seek to alert future organizers, and the broader artificial intelligence research community, to the enormous growth in dual submissions. The incidence of exact duplicate submissions, which are easy to detect, has been eclipsed by the number of papers that use different words to describe the same contribution, which are extremely time-consuming to detect. The growth in this phenomenon is likely facilitated by increasing access to generative AI tools. We include several recommendations for addressing this challenge, including (1) updating the AAAI Multiple Submission Policy and educating the community about acceptable practice, (2) having dual-submission checking tools in place before submissions close, (3) working across venues to converge on consistent policies and penalties to aid in reducing the incidence of dual submission, and (4) creating a community-driven adversarial challenge to accelerate the development of robust detection tools.

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

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.

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".

Author rebuttals are the main post-submission window in peer review, but their effect on reviewer scores remains hard to measure because score updates mix rebuttal content with initial score position, paper-level consensus, reviewer confidence, and discussion dynamics. We study ICLR 2024-2025 using 73,000 reviewer trajectories with externally archived pre- and post-rebuttal scores, and use LLMs only as measurement instruments. Gemini Flash 3.0 predicts implied pre-rebuttal scores from score-stripped review text. The resulting text-score offset predicts later movement, with score-increase rates rising from 8.3% when text reads below the assigned score to 31.9% when it reads above. Claude Opus 4.6 induces, and outcome-blinded Gemini Flash 3.0 validates, a 44-feature taxonomy of resolved reviewer-author exchanges, where 23 features replicate across model and held-out year under Bonferroni correction. In the rebuttal-engaged benchmark (n=6,705), initial-review structure already predicts much score movement (AUC=0.747, minimal AUC=0.696), while adding the resolved exchange raises AUC to 0.804. Rebuttals can move scores, but measurable movement is bounded by initial-review structure, and robust exchange signals are mostly rebuttal failure modes.

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.

AI systems for peer review fail on three fronts: they train on Computer Science and Machine Learning venues alone, ignore the iterative dialogue that validates science, and evaluate on stylistic mimicry rather than real editorial judgment. We introduce FirstPass, a dataset and fine-tuned model that addresses all three. Curating 3,668 complete multi-round peer-review dialogues from Nature Communications across five scientific domains (biology, chemistry, neuroscience, physics, and earth science), we exploit mandatory transparent peer review (instituted November 2022) and verify 100% content integrity by automated audit. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on three tasks: review generation, reviewer updating, and revision-cycle prediction. Our key finding is that response-only loss masking is a prerequisite, not an optimization: without it, accuracy is 62.0%, below the majority baseline; with it, FirstPass achieves 80.5% accuracy and F1-macro 78.2% on predicting editorial outcomes (Standard vs. Extended revision cycles), outperforming Gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview zero-shot by 10.4 percentage points and all baselines with statistical significance (McNemar p < 0.001). On generation, FirstPass produces reviews averaging 1,187 words, substantially closer to human references (2,155 words) than any baseline, achieving ROUGE-L 0.154 with significant gains over Qwen and DeepSeek zero-shot (p < 0.001). Deployed in the pre-submission loop as an anticipatory scientific co-author, FirstPass simulates expert critique and predicts revision cycle outcomes before submission, giving authors the judgment a trusted colleague would provide, with consistent cross-domain performance across five disciplines.

Pre-submission hardening of human-authored LaTeX computer science papers differs from drafting assistance because it requires adversarial whole-paper review, explicit no-fix outcomes, and bounded artifact-safe revision. Existing writing assistants, critique generators, and judge-centered loops lack durable issue identity across rounds, deterministic routing from critique to adjudication, and manuscript control that can reject invalid concerns or defer author-dependent ones. We present PaperJury, a closed-loop review-verdict-revise-verify system built on a deterministic-versus-semantic split: deterministic orchestration manages decomposition, a frozen claim spine, a durable ledger, routing, stopping, and exact-once patch application, while semantic agents are limited to bounded review, judgment, and repair. PaperJury combines bounded holistic review, contestability-based routing, a due-process trial, and risk-proportional guard chains for anchor-bounded edits, yielding terminal outcomes of invalid-drop, valid-fixable, and author-required. In a two-arm expert-review evaluation on held-out Vision, natural language processing, and machine learning papers against four baselines, we assess issue quality, verdict and routing quality, edit safety, convergence behavior, and cost, supporting the thesis that load-bearing safety and completion logic should reside in deterministic orchestration rather than model discretion. PaperJury is available at https://github.com/u7079256/paperjury.

Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.

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.

Verifiability, attribution, and reproducibility are foundational requirements of scientific knowledge, yet current publishing infrastructure does not enforce them at scale. We introduce Traxia, an agent-native scientific publishing framework in which AI research agents publish verifiable papers, build reputational identities, peer-review one another, and collaborate with humans in a shared provenance model. Traxia treats agents as first-class epistemic participants: every paper carries a reasoning trace, every claim a confidence interval, every agent a cryptographically signed identity, and every collaboration an immutable contribution log. We formalise five components: Agent Identity and Registry, Verifiable Publishing Layer, four-tier Peer Review Protocol, Reputation and Staking Engine, and a Knowledge Graph with contradiction detection. The framework targets reproducibility failure, provenance opacity, and exclusion of Global South research capacity. This paper presents architectural foundations and formal specifications only; it does not report empirical results. Evaluation and deeper component studies will follow in subsequent papers. A prototype partially implements core formalisms; the full system remains under active development.

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.

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.