Fetching the paper…
Reading the bibliography…
Peer review underpins scientific progress, but it is increasingly strained by reviewer shortages and growing workloads.
A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales
Jacob Cohen. 1960 · 1960
Earlier work this paper cites.
Automated assessment of the quality of peer reviews using natural language processing techniques
Lakshmi Ramachandran, Edward F Gehringer, and Ravi K Yadav. 2017 · 2017
Earlier work this paper cites.
Aspect-based sentiment analysis of scientific reviews
Souvic Chakraborty, Pawan Goyal, and Animesh Mukherjee. 2020 · 2020
Earlier work this paper cites.
React: A review comment dataset for actionability (and more)
G. Choudhary, Natwar Modani, and Nitish Maurya. 2022 · 2022
Earlier work this paper cites.
Peer review analyze: A novel benchmark resource for computational analysis of peer reviews
Tirthankar Ghosal, Sandeep Kumar, Prabhat Kumar Bharti, and Asif Ekbal. 2022 · 2022
Earlier work this paper cites.
Holistic evaluation of language models
Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, et al. 2022 · 2022
Earlier work this paper cites.
Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Aarohi Srivastava, Abhinav Rastogi, Abhishek Rao, Abu Awal Md Shoeb, Abubakar Abid, Adam Fisch, Adam R Brown, Adam Santoro, Aditya Gupta, Adrià Garriga-Alonso, et al. 2022 · 2022
Earlier work this paper cites.
Can we automate scientific reviewing?
Weizhe Yuan, Pengfei Liu, and Graham Neubig. 2022 · 2022
Earlier work this paper cites.
Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? considerations and recommendations for use of chatgpt and other large language models in scholarly peer review
Mohammad Hosseini and Serge P.J.M. Horbach. 2023 · 2023
Earlier work this paper cites.
Summarizing multiple documents with conversational structure for meta-review generation
Miao Li, Eduard H. Hovy, and Jey Han Lau. 2023 · 2023
Earlier work this paper cites.
Gpt4 is slightly helpful for peer-review assistance: A pilot study
Zachary Robertson. 2023 · 2023
Earlier work this paper cites.
Time to rethink academic publishing: the peer reviewer crisis
Carolina Tropini, B Brett Finlay, Mark Nichter, Melissa K Melby, Jessica L Metcalf, Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello, Liping Zhao, Margaret J McFall-Ngai, Naama Geva-Zatorsky, Katherine R Amato, et al. 2023 · 2023
Earlier work this paper cites.
Generative adversarial reviews: When llms become the critic
Nicolas Bougie and Narimasa Watanabe. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Automated focused feedback generation for scientific writing assistance
Eric Chamoun, Michael Schlichktrull, and Andreas Vlachos. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Marg: Multi-agent review generation for scientific papers
Mike D’Arcy, Tom Hope, Larry Birnbaum, and Doug Downey. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Llms assist nlp researchers: Critique paper (meta-) reviewing
Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao, Zhongfen Deng, Shuaiqi Liu, Renze Lou, Henry Peng Zou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Nan Zhang, Mukund Srinath, et al. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Reviewer2: Optimizing review generation through prompt generation
Evaluating literature reviews conducted by humans versus chatgpt: Comparative study
Mehrnaz Mostafapour, Jacqueline H Fortier, Karen Pacheco, Heather Murray, and Gary Garber. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Exploring the potential of chatgpt in the peer review process: an observational study
Ahmed Saad, Nathan Jenko, Sisith Ariyaratne, Nick Birch, Karthikeyan P Iyengar, Arthur Mark Davies, Raju Vaishya, and Rajesh Botchu. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Metawriter: Exploring the potential and perils of ai writing support in scientific peer review
Lu Sun, Stone Tao, Junjie Hu, and Steven P. Dow. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Ai-driven review systems: evaluating llms in scalable and bias-aware academic reviews
Keith Tyser, Ben Segev, Gaston Longhitano, Xin-Yu Zhang, Zachary Meeks, Jason Lee, Uday Garg, Nicholas Belsten, Avi Shporer, Madeleine Udell, et al. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
alphaXiv searches the wider corpus for related work and actual follow-ups.
alphaXiv is searching for related work…
Zhaolin Gao, Kianté Brantley, and Thorsten Joachims. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
The crisis of peer review: Part of the evolution of science
Hugo Horta and Jisun Jung. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Ai-based novelty detection in crowdsourced idea spaces
Johann Füller Julian Just, Thomas Ströhle and Katja Hutter. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
The ai review lottery: Widespread ai-assisted peer reviews boost paper scores and acceptance rates
Giuseppe Russo Latona, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tim R Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, and Robert West. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis
Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, et al. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Evaluating and enhancing large language models for novelty assessment in scholarly publications
Ethan Lin, Zhiyuan Peng, and Yi Fang. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery
Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Jakob N. Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. 2024 · 2024
Cited alongside, same era.
Rui Yang, Xiaoman Pan, Feng Luo, Shuang Qiu, Han Zhong, Dong Yu, and Jianshu Chen. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Are we there yet? revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review
Rui Ye, Xianghe Pang, Jingyi Chai, Jiaao Chen, Zhen fei Yin, Zhen Xiang, Xiaowen Dong, Jing Shao, and Siheng Chen. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Is llm a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of llm on automatic paper reviewing tasks
Ruiyang Zhou, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. 2024 · 2024
Later among the works it cites.
Multi-objective preference optimization: Improving human alignment of generative models
Akhil Agnihotri, Rahul Jain, Deepak Ramachandran, and Zheng Wen. 2025 · 2025
Closest in time.
Reviewagents: Bridging the gap between human and ai-generated paper reviews
Xian Gao, Jiacheng Ruan, Jingsheng Gao, Ting Liu, and Yuzhuo Fu. 2025 · 2025
Closest in time.
Llms as meta-reviewers’ assistants: A case study
Eftekhar Hossain, Sanjeev Kumar Sinha, Naman Bansal, Alex Knipper, Souvika Sarkar, John Salvador, Yash Mahajan, Sri Guttikonda, Mousumi Akter, Md. Mahadi Hassan, Matthew Freestone, Matthew C. Williams Jr., Dongji Feng, and Santu Karmaker. 2025 · 2025
Closest in time.
Identifying aspects in peer reviews
Sheng Lu, Ilia Kuznetsov, and Iryna Gurevych. 2025 · 2025
Closest in time.