RegCheck

RegCheck: A tool for structured comparisons between study registrations and papers

Across the social and medical sciences, researchers recognize that specifying planned research activities (i.e., 'registration') prior to the commencement of research has benefits for both the transparency and rigour of science. Despite this, evidence suggests that study registrations frequently go unexamined, minimizing their effectiveness. In a way this is no surprise: manually checking registrations against papers is labour- and time-intensive, requiring careful reading across formats and expertise across domains. The advent of AI unlocks new possibilities in facilitating this activity. We present RegCheck, a modular LLM-assisted tool designed to help researchers, reviewers, and editors from across scientific disciplines compare study registrations with their corresponding papers. Importantly, RegCheck keeps human expertise and judgement in the loop by (i) ensuring that users are the ones who determine which features should be compared, and (ii) presenting the most relevant text associated with each feature to the user, facilitating (rather than replacing) human discrepancy judgements. RegCheck also generates shareable reports with unique RegCheck IDs, enabling them to be easily shared and verified by other users. RegCheck is designed to be adaptable across scientific domains, as well as registration and publication formats. In this paper we provide an overview of the motivation, workflow, and design principles of RegCheck, and we discuss its potential as an extensible infrastructure for reproducible science with an example use case.

Refine

I recently tried refine, an AI tool for refining academic articles, developed by Yann Calvó López and Ben Golub.

ChicagoHAI/OpenAIReview

AI reviewing paper drafts for improvement.

AI agents are checking the scientific literature — and spotting decades-old errors

The technology is proving adept at finding faults in decades-old papers and reference databases.

Imagetwin

AI-powered image analysis to detect duplication, manipulation, plagiarism, and AI-generated content in research papers.

Some Data Indicating That Editors and Reviewers Do Not Check Preregistrations During the Review Process · Volume 6 Issue 1

Incorrect Article Type Labeling: This article was previously mislabeled as an editorial article. This has now been corrected.

AI linked to explosion of low-quality biomedical research papers

Analysis flags hundreds of studies that seem to follow a template, reporting correlations between complex health conditions and single variables based on publicly available data sets.

How do authors want to use AI for review?

A survey of researchers who compared AI-generated scientific reviews with journal-agnostic human peer review reveals that they overwhelmingly prefer using AI as a self-checking tool before submission rather than as a replacement for human reviewers. It encourages an “author-centric” model in which AI helps researchers improve their manuscripts before they are reviewed by their peers.

Agentic autofix for code scanning alerts in public preview - GitHub Changelog

Fix code scanning alerts faster with agentic autofix.

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.

elvis on Twitter / X

arXiv Papers → LLM ArtifactsThis is how I keep up with AI research now.It's like having access to the most personalized arXiv feed.Automations run everyday to curate papers based a set of rules and insights.Curated papers are indexed and power the artifacts.Agent… pic.twitter.com/5UCxF8ZsT0— elvis (@omarsar0) May 6, 2026

Memorize details from AI research papers

The second brain of AI researchers for machine learning, computer vision and natural language processing paper reviews.

Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...

Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize...

Publish and Perish: How AI-Accelerated Writing Without...

Artificial intelligence tools are accelerating manuscript production far faster than peer review capacity can expand. Applying the theory of constraints from manufacturing science, we formalize...

Content Signals

An up-to-date guide to the IETF's proposed new AI Preferences (aipref): a new way for website publishers to control how automated systems use their content.