Large-scale expert annotation shows current AI reviewers complement humans by surfacing distinct issues but cannot substitute for them due to higher overlap and specific limitations like poor long-context handling.
Figure 7: Reviewer prompt (Part 2 of 3): required output format for each review item and the citation list, and the six Nature evaluation criteria ordered by priority
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
1
Pith paper citing it
fields
cs.CL 1years
2026 1verdicts
ACCEPT 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists
Large-scale expert annotation shows current AI reviewers complement humans by surfacing distinct issues but cannot substitute for them due to higher overlap and specific limitations like poor long-context handling.