Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2211.06651 v2 pith:AZKCZIA5 submitted 2022-11-12 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords peerreviewdatasetsassistancedatanlpeerresourcereviewing
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Peer review constitutes a core component of scholarly publishing; yet it demands substantial expertise and training, and is susceptible to errors and biases. Various applications of NLP for peer reviewing assistance aim to support reviewers in this complex process, but the lack of clearly licensed datasets and multi-domain corpora prevent the systematic study of NLP for peer review. To remedy this, we introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. In addition to the new datasets of paper drafts, camera-ready versions and peer reviews from the NLP community, we establish a unified data representation and augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. We complement our resource with implementations and analysis of three reviewing assistance tasks, including a novel guided skimming task. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond. The data and code are publicly available.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SPOT shows that state-of-the-art AI models detect fewer than one in five known errors in full scientific papers, with precision below 7%.

  2. ReviewRL: Towards Automated Scientific Review with RL

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ReviewRL combines arXiv retrieval, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning with a composite reward to generate paper reviews that better match human ratings and judged quality.

Pith tools