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 […]
Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable
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.
ReviewBench: An Extensible Framework for Benchmarking Human and AI Manuscript Review
The volume of scientific manuscripts is rising faster than the available pool of expert reviewers, and AI tools are emerging as a possible response, ranging from frontier large language models applied directly to peer review to purpose-built multi-agent systems. Scalable, standardized benchmarks are needed to regularly evaluate how these tools compare to one another and to human reviewers. We present ReviewBench, an open-source, venue-agnostic framework that compares human and AI reviews across structure, alignment with a paper’s major claims, impact, and critique category. We apply ReviewBench to 145,021 review comments from human reviewers, frontier large language models (GPT-5.2, and Gemini 3 Pro), and Reviewer3.com (R3), a multi-agent peer review system. The dataset spans papers in computer science (ICLR 2025, n = 1,000), social science (Nature Human Behaviour, n = 142), and life science (eLife, n = 1,000). Across disciplines, AI reviews are more structured and engage more directly with a paper’s major claims, with R3 more often surfacing consequential comments, defined as comments capable of undermining those claims. When restricting to critical comments, however, human reviewers rank first on consequential rate on more individual papers than any AI source, despite a lower average. We identify a bimodal reviewer distribution with peaks near 0% and 100%, indicating that many reviewers outperform AI on this metric, but a substantial fraction of reviewers near 0% brings the average down. Critique typing demonstrates systematic differences, where humans emphasize contribution and clarity, while AI emphasizes validity, sufficiency, and transparency. Together, these findings argue against framing AI as a replacement for human review and instead support a complementary model in which AI scales technical verification of major claims while human judgment remains essential for evaluating contribution and shaping editorial decisions.
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.
Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem
Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale. Exponential growth in manuscript submissions to premier ML venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR is outpacing the finite capacity of qualified reviewers, leading to concerns about review quality, consistency, and reviewer fatigue. This position paper argues that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority. We advocate for a comprehensive AI-augmented ecosystem, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) not as replacements for human judgment, but as sophisticated collaborators for authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs). We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making. Crucially, we contend that the development of such systems hinges on access to more granular, structured, and ethically-sourced peer review process data. We outline a research agenda, including illustrative experiments, to develop and validate these AI assistants, and discuss significant technical and ethical challenges. We call upon the ML community to proactively build this AI-assisted future, ensuring the continued integrity and scalability of scientific validation, while maintaining high standards of peer review.
A New Paradigm for Scientific Publishing, Peer Review, and Impact Assessment
Scientific publishing and peer review have evolved little in three centuries, while the demands placed on them have grown profoundly. The growing role of artificial intelligence has underscored deep, systemic shortcomings of an aging system that has largely evaded innovation, a system whose origins are appallingly closer to the invention of the printing press than to the internet. We can do better – much better. This article is intended as the beginning of a communal experiment: a living document that critically reviews the modern academic publishing and peer-review system and presents a concrete framework to address what bibliometrics experts¹ have characterized as "the pervasive misapplication of indicators to the evaluation of scientific performance". Building on the Leiden Manifesto, DORA, and a body of scholarship spanning many disciplines and decades, we present a community-governed, non-profit platform organized around three trust-weighted impact factors, for articles, authors, and reviewers, with full algorithmic transparency, an open development log, and structural decoupling of credibility scoring from content moderation and from monetization. We invite the community to discuss, critique, and help shape it.
The new way we’ll do science
Papers should become human-readable views over a graph of data, tools, results, and certificates.
AI, peer review and the human activity of science
When researchers cede their scientific judgement to machines, we lose something important.
AI’s Growing Role as Scientific Peer Reviewer | Stanford HAI
Stanford computer scientist James Zou is exploring how AI can accelerate scientific research and peer review. His finding: AI excels at spotting gaps, but judgment calls still need humans.
Elicit: AI for scientific research
Use AI to search, summarize, extract data from, and chat with over 125 million papers. Used by over 2 million researchers in academia and industry.
Elicit: AI for scientific research
Use AI to search, summarize, extract data from, and chat with over 125 million papers. Used by over 2 million researchers in academia and industry.
Paperstars
A better way to evaluate scientific papers. Methodological soundness and transparency, not citation counts.
We are Who We Cite: Bridges of Influence Between Natural Language Processing and Other Academic Fields
Natural Language Processing (NLP) is poised to substantially influence the world. However, significant progress comes hand-in-hand with substantial risks. Addressing them requires broad engagement with various fields of study. Yet, little empirical work examines the state of such engagement (past or current). In this paper, we quantify the degree of influence between 23 fields of study and NLP (on each other). We analyzed \textasciitilde77k NLP papers, \textasciitilde3.1m citations from NLP papers to other papers, and \textasciitilde1.8m citations from other papers to NLP papers. We show that, unlike most fields, the cross-field engagement of NLP, measured by our proposed Citation Field Diversity Index (CFDI), has declined from 0.58 in 1980 to 0.31 in 2022 (an all-time low). In addition, we find that NLP has grown more insular—citing increasingly more NLP papers and having fewer papers that act as bridges between fields. NLP citations are dominated by computer science; Less than 8% of NLP citations are to linguistics, and less than 3% are to math and psychology. These findings underscore NLP's urgent need to reflect on its engagement with various fields.
HalluCiteChecker: A Lightweight Toolkit for Hallucinated Citation Detection and Verification in the Era of AI Scientists
We introduce HalluCiteChecker, a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers. While AI assistant technologies have transformed the academic writing process, including citation recommendation, they have also led to the emergence of hallucinated citations that do not correspond to any existing work. Such citations not only undermine the credibility of scientific papers but also impose an additional burden on reviewers and authors, who must manually verify their validity during the review process. In this study, we formalize hallucinated citation detection as an NLP task and provide a corresponding toolkit as a practical foundation for addressing this problem. Our package is lightweight and can perform verification in seconds on a standard laptop. It can also be executed entirely offline and runs efficiently using only CPUs. We hope that HalluCiteChecker will help reduce reviewer workload and support organizers by enabling systematic pre-review and publication checks. Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI. A demonstration video is available on YouTube.
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.
