{"paper":{"title":"To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews.","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"C\\'esar Leblanc, Lukas Picek","submitted_at":"2026-05-15T20:43:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and"},"claims":{"count":4,"items":[{"kind":"strongest_claim","text":"Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers, and 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version.","source":"verdict.strongest_claim","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C1","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"weakest_assumption","text":"The 56 responses from a self-selected subset of authors at two specific CS venues are representative enough to support general statements about author perceptions of AI reviews; the paper relies on this without reporting response rate or testing for non-response bias.","source":"verdict.weakest_assumption","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C2","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"one_line_summary","text":"Survey of 56 authors at two CS venues finds 84% viewed AI reviews as useful and 82% used some feedback in revisions, yet trusted them less than human reviews and preferred supervised deployment.","source":"verdict.one_line_summary","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C3","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"headline","text":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews.","source":"verdict.pith_extraction.headline","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C4","attestation":"unclaimed"}],"snapshot_sha256":"e4c3d6cd62129ef9260f2a29be02ba1e75ded8f32ca6fa19319f57a5af7038c1"},"source":{"id":"2605.16623","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":"8373c078-20f3-4e34-8ef4-59304f8c552b","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"created_at":"2026-05-19T20:43:00.069733Z","strongest_claim":"Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers, and 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version.","one_line_summary":"Survey of 56 authors at two CS venues finds 84% viewed AI reviews as useful and 82% used some feedback in revisions, yet trusted them less than human reviews and preferred supervised deployment.","pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v0.9.0","weakest_assumption":"The 56 responses from a self-selected subset of authors at two specific CS venues are representative enough to support general statements about author perceptions of AI reviews; the paper relies on this without reporting response rate or testing for non-response bias.","pith_extraction_headline":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews."},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2605.16623/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[{"name":"doi_title_agreement","ran_at":"2026-05-19T21:01:19.327839Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"doi_compliance","ran_at":"2026-05-19T20:51:22.695490Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"claim_evidence","ran_at":"2026-05-19T19:21:56.763970Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"ai_meta_artifact","ran_at":"2026-05-19T18:33:26.586504Z","status":"skipped","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0}],"snapshot_sha256":"360deb1e92590a76d1a1411d2ba48f2daa58360d36b8f601d20bcc9b83b7dcfa"},"references":{"count":51,"sample":[{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"https://aaai","work_id":"f71b9220-f8b1-49d1-8a26-751ca4117f44","ref_index":1,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(5):e2401232121","work_id":"2c497100-ac14-430c-8e28-cda9a100be97","ref_index":2,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 8:1622292","work_id":"790d4259-5a35-4e3d-b3e5-4210169d9718","ref_index":3,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Bhavsar D, Duffy L, Jo H, et al (2025) Policies on artificial intelligence chatbots among academicpublishers:across-sectionalaudit.ResearchIntegrityandPeerReview10(1):1","work_id":"44c71f7c-8871-4bc8-947c-a62bc36f985b","ref_index":4,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2006,"title":"Qualitative research in psychology 3(2):77–101","work_id":"d1b4828c-c8e1-438c-9e4c-5edc3e8160ee","ref_index":5,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false}],"resolved_work":51,"snapshot_sha256":"72f3ba0cc43fdacbe1ccfeab1bc4b40ea5c42e89ccb3cf01601385b5af6beff9","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"}