Scholarly Peer Review

Novelty is a core requirement in academic publishing and a central focus of peer review, yet the growing volume of submissions has placed increasing pressure on human reviewers. While large language models (LLMs), including those fine-tuned on peer review data, have shown promise in generating review comments, the absence of a dedicated benchmark has limited systematic evaluation of their ability to assess research novelty. To address this gap, we introduce NovBench, the first large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' capability to generate novelty evaluations in support of human peer review. NovBench comprises 1,684 paper-review pairs from a leading NLP conference, including novelty descriptions extracted from paper introductions and corresponding expert-written novelty evaluations. We focus on both sources because the introduction provides a standardized and explicit articulation of novelty claims, while expert-written novelty evaluations constitute one of the current gold standards of human judgment. Furthermore, we propose a four-dimensional evaluation framework (including Relevance, Correctness, Coverage, and Clarity) to assess the quality of LLM-generated novelty evaluations. Extensive experiments on both general and specialized LLMs under different prompting strategies reveal that current models exhibit limited understanding of scientific novelty, and that fine--tuned models often suffer from instruction-following deficiencies. These findings underscore the need for targeted fine-tuning strategies that jointly improve novelty comprehension and instruction adherence.

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.

Peer review plays a central role in the NLP publication process, but is susceptible to various biases. Here, we study language-of-study (LoS) bias: the tendency for reviewers to evaluate a paper differently based on the language(s) it studies, rather than its scientific merit. Despite being explicitly flagged in reviewing guidelines, such biases are poorly understood. Prior work treats such comments as part of broader categories of weak or unconstructive reviews without defining them as a distinct form of bias. We present the first systematic characterization of LoS bias, distinguishing negative and positive forms, and introduce the human-annotated dataset LOBSTER (Language-Of-study Bias in ScienTific pEer Review) and an LLM-based detection pipeline achieving 87.37 macro F1. We analyze 15,645 reviews to estimate how negative and positive biases differ with respect to the LoS, and find that non-English papers face substantially higher bias rates than English-only ones, with negative bias consistently outweighing positive bias. Finally, we identify four subcategories of negative bias, and find that demanding unjustified cross-lingual generalization is the most dominant form. We publicly release all resources to support work on fairer reviewing practices in NLP and beyond.

This paper presents OpenCLAW-P2P v7.0, a comprehensive evolution of the decentralized collective-intelligence platform in which autonomous AI agents publish, peer-review, score, and iteratively improve scientific research papers without any human gatekeeper. Building on the v6.0 foundations -- multi-layer persistence, live reference verification, multi-LLM granular scoring, calibrated deception detection, the Silicon Chess-Grid FSM, and the AETHER containerized inference engine -- this release introduces mathematical corrections to the theoretical framework, ensuring dimensional consistency, proper range constraints, and unambiguous notation throughout. Additionally, this edition documents significant ecosystem expansions including the CAJAL family of open-source language models (4B and 9B parameters) fine-tuned for scientific paper generation. The four major subsystems introduced in v6.0 are retained: (i) a Multi-Layer Paper Persistence Architecture with four storage tiers ensuring zero paper loss; (ii) a Multi-Layer Retrieval Cascade reducing latency from >3s to <50ms; (iii) a Live Reference Verification system detecting fabricated citations with >85% accuracy; and (iv) a Scientific API Proxy providing access to seven public scientific databases. Mathematical corrections in v7.0 include: corrected fixed-point condition in the Sufficient Reason theorem; dimensionally consistent progress-rate indicator; fully specified reputation update formula incorporating quality terms q0 and q-bar; clarified attention-logit bound in the AETHER pruning theorem; explicit range documentation for the calibration mapping; non-negativity guarantee for the depth score; discrete-time notation for the PD Governor; and explicit parameter definitions for the HSR weight formula.

Assessing the quality of scientific research is essential for scholarly communication, yet widely used approaches face limitations in scalability, subjectivity, and time delay. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated research evaluation based on textual content. This study examines whether LLMs can support post-publication peer review tasks by benchmarking their outputs against expert judgments and citation-based indicators. Two evaluation tasks are constructed using articles from the H1 Connect platform: identifying high-quality articles and performing finer-grained evaluation including article rating, merit classification, and expert style commenting. Multiple model families, including BERT models, general-purpose LLMs, and reasoning oriented LLMs, are evaluated under multiple learning strategies. Results show that LLMs perform well in coarse grained evaluation tasks, achieving accuracy above 0.8 in identifying highly recommended articles. However, performance decreases substantially in fine-grained rating tasks. Few-shot prompting improves performance over zero-shot settings, while supervised fine-tuning produces the strongest and most balanced results. Retrieval augmented prompting improves classification accuracy in some cases but does not consistently strengthen alignment with citation indicators. The overall correlations between model outputs and citation indicators remain positive but moderate.

Authors often struggle to interpret peer review feedback, deriving false hope from polite comments or feeling confused by specific low scores. To investigate this, we construct a dataset of over 30,000 ICLR 2021-2025 submissions and compare acceptance prediction performance using numerical scores versus text reviews. Our experiments reveal a significant performance gap: score-based models achieve 91% accuracy, while text-based models reach only 81% even with large language models, indicating that textual information is considerably less reliable. To explain this phenomenon, we first analyze the 9% of samples that score-based models fail to predict, finding their score distributions exhibit high kurtosis and negative skewness, which suggests that individual low scores play a decisive role in rejection even when the average score falls near the borderline. We then examine why text-based accuracy significantly lags behind scores from a review sentiment perspective, revealing the prevalence of the Politeness Principle: reviews of rejected papers still contain more positive than negative sentiment words, masking the true rejection signal and making it difficult for authors to judge outcomes from text alone.

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But, are these policies enforceable? To answer this question, we assemble a dataset of peer reviews simulating multiple levels of human-AI collaboration, and evaluate five state-of-the-art detectors, including two commercial systems. Our analysis shows that all detectors misclassify a non-trivial fraction of LLM-polished reviews as AI-generated, thereby risking false accusations of academic misconduct. We further investigate whether peer-review-specific signals, including access to the paper manuscript and the constrained domain of scientific writing, can be leveraged to improve detection. While incorporating such signals yields measurable gains in some settings, we identify limitations in each approach and find that none meets the accuracy standards required for identifying AI use in peer reviews. Importantly, our results suggest that recent public estimates of AI use in peer reviews through the use of AI-text detectors should be interpreted with caution, as current detectors misclassify mixed reviews (collaborative human-AI outputs) as fully AI generated, potentially overstating the extent of policy violations.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design a $\textbf{C}$omparison-$\textbf{N}$ative framework for $\textbf{P}$aper $\textbf{E}$valuation ($\textbf{CNPE}$), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview.

Despite frequent double-blind review, demographic biases of authors still disadvantage the underrepresented groups. We present Fair-PaperRec, a MultiLayer Perceptron (MLP)-based model that addresses demographic disparities in post-review paper acceptance decisions while maintaining high-quality requirements. Our methodology penalizes demographic disparities while preserving quality through intersectional criteria (e.g., race, country) and a customized fairness loss, in contrast to heuristic approaches. Evaluations using conference data from ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI), Designing Interactive Systems (DIS), and Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) indicate a 42.03% increase in underrepresented group participation and a 3.16% improvement in overall utility, indicating that diversity promotion does not compromise academic rigor and supports equity-focused peer review solutions.

Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.

Automated peer review is often framed as generating fluent critique, yet reviewers and area chairs need judgments they can audit: where a concern applies, what evidence supports it, and what concrete follow-up is required. DeepReviewer2.0 is a process-controlled agentic review system built around an output contract: it produces a traceable review package with anchored annotations, localized evidence, and executable follow-up actions, and it exports only after meeting minimum traceability and coverage budgets. Concretely, it first builds a manuscript-only claim--evidence--risk ledger and verification agenda, then performs agenda-driven retrieval and writes anchored critiques under an export gate. On 134 ICLR2025 submissions under three fixed protocols, an un-finetuned 196B model running DeepReviewer2.0 outperforms Gemini-3.1-Pro-preview, improving strict major-issue coverage (37.26% vs.\ 23.57%) and winning 71.63% of micro-averaged blind comparisons against a human review committee, while ranking first among automatic systems in our pool. We position DeepReviewer2.0 as an assistive tool rather than a decision proxy, and note remaining gaps such as ethics-sensitive checks.

Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review workflows, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment. While these systems promise efficiency gains amid growing reviewer overload, their use introduces new sociotechnical risks. This paper presents a convergent mixed-method study combining discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences to examine how GenAI is discussed and experienced in peer review. Across both datasets, we find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, such as improving clarity or structuring feedback, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities. At the same time, participants highlight concerns about epistemic harm, over-standardization, unclear responsibility, and adversarial risks such as prompt injection. User interviews reveal how structural strain and institutional policy ambiguity shift interpretive and enforcement burdens onto individual scholars, disproportionately affecting junior authors and reviewers. By triangulating public governance discourse with lived review practices, this work reframes AI mediated peer review as a sociotechnical governance challenge and offers recommendations for preserving accountability, trust, and meaningful human oversight. Overall, we argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls that preserve accountability. We conclude with role specific recommendations that formalize the support judgment boundary.

The International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) is the premier international conference in the area of neural networks theory, analysis, and applications. The 2025 edition of the conference comprised 5,526 paper submissions, 7,877 active reviewers, 426 area chairs, 2,152 accepted papers, and more than 2,300 attendees. This represents a growth of about 100% in terms of submissions, 200% in terms of reviewers, and over 50% in terms of attendees as compared to the previous edition. In this paper, we describe several key aspects of the whole review process, including a strategy for ranking the scores provided by the reviewers by evaluating a score index and a calibrated version used experimentally to remove reviewer-specific bias from reviews.

Automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) has entered the coexistence phase with traditional peer review, where artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly incorporated into real-world manuscript evaluation. In parallel, research on automated and AI-assisted peer review has proliferated. Despite this momentum, empirical progress remains constrained by several critical limitations in existing datasets. While reviewers routinely evaluate figures, tables, and complex layouts to assess scientific claims, most existing datasets remain overwhelmingly text-centric. This bias is reinforced by a narrow focus on data from computer science publications. Furthermore, existing datasets rarely preserve precise alignment between review comments and specific manuscript versions, obscuring the iterative relationship between peer review and manuscript evolution. In response, we introduce FMMD, a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research. The dataset addresses the current limitations by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions. By explicitly aligning review comments with the exact article version under review, FMMD enables granular analysis of the peer review lifecycle. Importantly, its coverage of F1000Research extends ASPR research beyond its traditional focus on computer science to a diverse range of scientific disciplines. FMMD supports a range of research tasks, including visual-semantic consistency classification, figure-related review comment generation, and editorial decision prediction based on multimodal manuscript inputs, thereby providing a comprehensive empirical resource for developing and evaluating multimodal ASPR systems and advancing peer review research.

Peer review is at the heart of modern science. As submission numbers rise and research communities grow, the decline in review quality is a popular narrative and a common concern. Yet, is it true? Review quality is difficult to measure, and the ongoing evolution of reviewing practices makes it hard to compare reviews across venues and time. To address this, we introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality and apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL. We document the diversity of review formats and introduce a new approach to review standardization. We propose a multi-dimensional schema for quantifying review quality as utility to editors and authors, coupled with both LLM-based and lightweight measurements. We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time. Contradicting the popular narrative, our cross-temporal analysis reveals no consistent decline in median review quality across venues and years. We propose alternative explanations, and outline recommendations to facilitate future empirical studies of review quality.

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a direct-to-text generation problem, suffering from hallucination, overlooked critiques, and a lack of verifiable grounding. To address these limitations, we introduce $\textbf{RebuttalAgent}$, the first multi-agents framework that reframes rebuttal generation as an evidence-centric planning task. Our system decomposes complex feedback into atomic concerns and dynamically constructs hybrid contexts by synthesizing compressed summaries with high-fidelity text while integrating an autonomous and on-demand external search module to resolve concerns requiring outside literature. By generating an inspectable response plan before drafting, $\textbf{RebuttalAgent}$ ensures that every argument is explicitly anchored in internal or external evidence. We validate our approach on the proposed $\textbf{RebuttalBench}$ and demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms strong baselines in coverage, faithfulness, and strategic coherence, offering a transparent and controllable assistant for the peer review process.

Peer review is central to scientific quality, yet reliance on simple heuristics, namely lazy thinking and non-specific critiques, has threatened review quality. Prior work frames lazy thinking detection as single-label classification and stops at detection, yet review segments often exhibit multiple co-occurring issues, and reviewers benefit more from actionable, guideline-aware feedback than from labels alone. We further show that off-the-shelf LLMs prompted for feedback frequently rewrite the entire review or address the authors rather than the reviewer, motivating an inference-time approach. We introduce an LLM-driven framework that decomposes reviews into argumentative segments, identifies issues violating ACL Rolling Review (ARR) guidelines, and generates targeted feedback using issue-specific templates refined by a novel iterative, reranking-based generation algorithm. In a controlled rewriting study, our feedback reduces guideline violations by up to 92.4%. We also release LazyReviewPlus, the first multi-label dataset of 1,309 sentences annotated for detecting lazy thinking and lack of specificity.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into academic workflows, with many conferences and journals permitting their use for tasks such as language refinement and literature summarization. However, their use in peer review remains prohibited due to concerns around confidentiality breaches, hallucinated content, and inconsistent evaluations. As LLM-generated text becomes more indistinguishable from human writing, there is a growing need for reliable attribution mechanisms to preserve the integrity of the review process. In this work, we evaluate topic-based watermarking (TBW), a semantic-aware technique designed to embed detectable signals into LLM-generated text. We conduct a systematic assessment across multiple LLM configurations, including base, few-shot, and fine-tuned variants, using authentic peer review data from academic conferences. Our results show that TBW maintains review quality relative to non-watermarked outputs, while demonstrating robust detection performance under paraphrasing. These findings highlight the viability of TBW as a minimally intrusive and practical solution for LLM attribution in peer review settings.