Presentation-only revisions guided by AI feedback can boost AI reviewer scores by over 1 point on average with 75% success rate across tested systems.
Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future
2 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals, meta-review and revision aligned to reviews; and (iii) evaluation methods spanning human-centered, reference-based, LLM-based and aspect-oriented. We catalog datasets, compare modeling choices, and discuss limitations, ethical concerns, and future directions. The survey aims to provide practical guidance for building, evaluating, and integrating LLM systems across the full peer review workflow.
fields
cs.CL 2years
2026 2representative citing papers
LLMs overrate weak papers, diverge from humans on criteria like clarity and reproducibility, write longer less diverse reviews, and remain vulnerable to prompt injection attacks that can boost low-scoring papers to acceptance levels.
citing papers explorer
-
No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions
Presentation-only revisions guided by AI feedback can boost AI reviewer scores by over 1 point on average with 75% success rate across tested systems.