You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and...

Science should be machine-readable - Marginal REVOLUTION

One of the leading tasks of our time: We develop a machine-automated approach for extracting results from papers, which we assess via a comprehensive review of the entire eLife corpus. Our method facilitates a direct comparison of machine and peer review, and sheds light on key challenges that must be overcome in order to facilitate […]

Definition of REVIEW

an act or process of carefully looking at or examining the quality, condition, etc., of something or someone; revision… See the full definition

The review mills, not just (self-)plagiarism in review reports, but a step further

Review mills sum up a new category of reviewer misconduct that flies in the face of reviewer ethics and integrity. A pattern of generic, vague, and repeated affirmations (identical or very similar boilerplate phrasing) is noted in the analysis of 263 review reports, regardless of the scientific content of the papers under review, coupled with coercive citation (perhaps among the main reasons for such behavior), which when combined produce fake reviews. The misconduct associated with review mills is unlike mere plagiarism (self-plagiarism) of reviewer comments. It is important to quantify the problem and to take urgent measures: (a) to identify the review millers; (b) to rectify the published literature; and (c) to determine procedures for journals and publishers on procedures to counter this new type of misconduct.

You can just review things: A digital ethnography of informal peer review

Across scholarly communities, manuscripts face similar evaluative rituals: editors invite experts to privately assess submissions through formal peer reviews. This closed, loosely structured, and publisher-mediated process is now being supplemented by critiques on open, distributed platforms. We call this practice, a blend of three open peer review variants, informal peer review as it is accessible to outsiders, unmediated by publishers, and conducted across public platforms. Informal peer reviewers range from occasional error detectors to experienced sleuths who identify plagiarism, fraud, errors, conflicts of interest, and conceptual flaws. They may interpret methods, clarify jargon, assess value, and connect to related work. Here, we asked four questions: (1) Who are informal peer reviewers? (2) Where do they work? (3) How do they evaluate research? and (4) What are their impacts? To answer these questions, we conducted a cross-platform digital ethnography with participant observation. We traced discourse across communities over four months and revisited cases after nine and twelve months. From 15 communities, we selected 12 case mentions (10 unique cases) and 8 meta-commentaries from 26 reviewers. Using open and axial coding, we generated 1,080 codes and four themes: reviewers are a motley crew, they self-organize across subpar digital spaces, use deep, uncommon strategies, and they face resistance from authors, publishers, and editors. Informal peer review, we concluded, is a fragile, minimally governed patchwork of people, platforms, and practices, as well as an emerging evidence infrastructure that can be scaled up. We advise advocates and tool-builders to evolve informal review tools, communities, training, and governance by connecting to scholars' values, reducing participation friction, and rewarding attempts to extend the scholarly dialogue.

Scientific production in the era of Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping scientific research. We analyze these changes in multiple, large-scale datasets with 2.1M preprints, 28K peer review reports, and 246M online accesses to scientific documents. We find: 1) scientists adopting LLMs to draft manuscripts demonstrate a large increase in paper production, ranging from 23.7-89.3% depending on scientific field and author background, 2) LLM use has reversed the relationship between writing complexity and paper quality, leading to an influx of manuscripts that are linguistically complex but substantively underwhelming, and 3) LLM adopters access and cite more diverse prior work, including books and younger, less-cited documents. These findings highlight a stunning shift in scientific production that will likely require a change in how journals, funding agencies, and tenure committees evaluate scientific works.

ChicagoHAI/OpenAIReview

AI reviewing paper drafts for improvement.

Open Evaluation: A Vision for Entirely Transparent Post-Publication Peer Review and Rating for Science

The two major functions of a scientific publishing system are to provide access to and evaluation of scientific papers. While open access (OA) is becoming a reality, open evaluation (OE), the other side of coin, has received less attention. Evaluation steers the attention of the scientific community and thus the very course of science. It also influences the use of scientific findings in public policy. The current system of scientific publishing provides only journal prestige as an indication of the quality of new papers and relies on a non-transparent and noisy pre-publication peer review process, which delays publication by many months on average. Here I propose an OE system, in which papers are evaluated post-publication in an ongoing fashion by means of open peer review and rating. Through signed ratings and reviews, scientists steer the attention of their field and build their reputation. Reviewers are motivated to be objective, because low-quality or self-serving signed evaluations will negatively impact their reputation. A core feature of this proposal is a division of powers between the accumulation of evaluative evidence and the analysis of this evidence by paper evaluation functions (PEFs). PEFs can be freely defined by individuals or groups (e.g. scientific societies) and provide a plurality of perspectives on the scientific literature. Simple PEFs will use averages of ratings, weighting reviewers (e.g. by H-factor) and rating scales (e.g. by relevance to a decision process) in different ways. Complex PEFs will use advanced statistical techniques to infer the quality of a paper. Papers with initially promising ratings will be more deeply evaluated. The continual refinement of PEFs in response to attempts by individuals to influence evaluations in their own favor will make the system ungameable. OA and OE together have the power to revolutionize scientific publishing and usher in a new culture of transparency, constructive criticism, and collaboration.

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

How LLMs Distort Our Written Language

Large language models (LLMs) are used by over a billion people globally, most often to assist with writing. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs not only alter the voice and tone of human writing but also consistently alter the intended meaning. First, we conduct a human user study to understand how people actually interact with LLMs when using them for writing. Our findings reveal that extensive LLM use led to a nearly 70% increase in essays that remained neutral in answering the topic question. Significantly more heavy LLM users reported that the writing was less creative and not in their voice. Next, using a dataset of human-written essays that was collected in 2021 before the widespread release of LLMs, we study how asking an LLM to revise the essay based on the human-written feedback in the dataset induces large changes in the resulting content and meaning. We find that even when LLMs are prompted with expert feedback and asked to only make grammar edits, they still change the text in a way that significantly alters its semantic meaning. We then examine LLM-generated text in the wild, specifically focusing on the 21% of AI-generated scientific peer reviews at a recent top AI conference. We find that LLM-generated reviews place significantly less weight on clarity and significance of the research, and assign scores that, on average, are a full point higher. These findings highlight a misalignment between the perceived benefit of AI use and an implicit, consistent effect on the semantics of human writing, motivating future work on how widespread AI writing will affect our cultural and scientific institutions.

Peer Review at the Crossroads

Peer review has long been regarded as a cornerstone of scholarly communication, ensuring high quality and credibility of published research. Although academic journals trace their origins back three centuries, the procedures for evaluating submissions, particularly peer review, have undergone continuous evolvement. Peer review’s formal institutionalization in the mid-20th century represents a significant, yet natural, phase in this ongoing transformation of scholarly communication. By the early 21st century, there emerged an opinion that the conventional model of peer review faces systematic challenges, including inefficiency, bias, and institutional inertia. The study aims to synthesize the evolution, practices, and outcomes of both conventional and innovative peer review models in scholarly publishing. Through a mixed-methods approach combining interpretative literature review and process modeling (Business Process Model and Notation –BPMN), it identifies four frameworks: pre-publication peer review, registered reports, modular publishing, and the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) model. While the PRC model, which integrates preprints with post-publication review, demonstrates advantages in transparency and accessibility, no single approach emerges as universally ideal. The choice of model depends on disciplinary context, resource availability, and institutional priorities. The analysis underscores the need for adaptable platforms that enable hybrid workflows, balancing rigor with inclusivity. Future research must address empirical gaps in evaluating these innovations, particularly their long-term impact on equity and epistemic norms.

hunk — review-first terminal diff viewer

Hunk is a review-first terminal diff viewer for agent-authored changesets. Multi-file review stream, inline AI annotations, watch mode, and Git/Jujutsu integration.

When Nature Calls: The Enshittification of Science and Its Enablers

Proof-of-work papers, policy laundering, and the collapse of self-correction

Posts

Do Not Research is a collaborative platform for publishing writing, visual art and beyond.

Posts

Do Not Research is a collaborative platform for publishing writing, visual art and beyond.