REVIEW 14 cited by
The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates
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
abstract
Journals and conferences worry that peer reviews assisted by artificial intelligence (AI), in particular, large language models (LLMs), may negatively influence the validity and fairness of the peer-review system, a cornerstone of modern science. In this work, we address this concern with a quasi-experimental study of the prevalence and impact of AI-assisted peer reviews in the context of the 2024 International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), a large and prestigious machine-learning conference. Our contributions are threefold. Firstly, we obtain a lower bound for the prevalence of AI-assisted reviews at ICLR 2024 using the GPTZero LLM detector, estimating that at least $15.8\%$ of reviews were written with AI assistance. Secondly, we estimate the impact of AI-assisted reviews on submission scores. Considering pairs of reviews with different scores assigned to the same paper, we find that in $53.4\%$ of pairs the AI-assisted review scores higher than the human review ($p = 0.002$; relative difference in probability of scoring higher: $+14.4\%$ in favor of AI-assisted reviews). Thirdly, we assess the impact of receiving an AI-assisted peer review on submission acceptance. In a matched study, submissions near the acceptance threshold that received an AI-assisted peer review were $4.9$ percentage points ($p = 0.024$) more likely to be accepted than submissions that did not. Overall, we show that AI-assisted reviews are consequential to the peer-review process and offer a discussion on future implications of current trends
Forward citations
Cited by 14 Pith papers
-
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
AI reviews for all 22,977 AAAI-26 papers were preferred by authors and PC members over human reviews on accuracy and suggestions and outperformed baselines at spotting weaknesses.
-
AutoSupervision: Closing the Feedback Loop in Scientific Workflows with Grounded Revision Verification
On a new 8,790-instance benchmark built from Nature Communications review records, LLMs characterize reviewer concerns well (GPT-5.5: 0.754) but verify evidence-backed revision resolution poorly (best 0.501).
-
GraphReview: Scientific Paper Evaluation via LLM-Based Graph Message Passing
GraphReview models paper evaluation as LLM-driven message passing on a semantic paper graph that links intrinsic quality, contemporaneous papers, and prior work, then applies Personalized PageRank for ranking and revi...
-
LLMs learn scientific taste from institutional traces across the social sciences
Fine-tuned LLMs trained on social science publication records outperform experts and frontier models at judging which research pitches deserve attention.
-
ChatGPT: Excellent Paper! Accept It. Editor: Imposter Found! Review Rejected
Authors show prompt injection attacks that jailbreak LLM paper reviewers for biased acceptance and propose embedding triggers to detect when reviews are LLM-generated rather than human.
-
The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models
LLMs align with human moral judgments only under high consensus, concentrate on a narrow set of moral values, and the profile-based prompting method's reported improvement is evaluated in-sample.
-
PeerCheck: Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality
PeerCheck finds that chain-of-thought prompting improves LLM academic reviews while retrieval-augmented generation sometimes lowers quality, and that LLMs and humans emphasize different aspects of papers.
-
Agentic Publication Protocol: An Attempt to Modernize Scientific Publication
Introduces the Agentic Publication Protocol (APP) as a repository-based standard for publishing papers together with reproducibility artifacts and agent instructions.
-
SafeReview: Defending LLM-based Review Systems Against Adversarial Hidden Prompts
SafeReview trains a Generator to create adversarial prompts and a Defender to detect them via co-evolution with an IR-GAN-inspired loss, claiming better resilience than static defenses for LLM-based peer review.
-
Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI
Peer review reports in AI conferences have grown longer and more standardized after LLMs, with increased emphasis on surface-level clarity and summaries at the expense of deeper critiques on originality and replicability.
-
LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
A survey synthesizing LLM methods for peer review critique generation and score prediction, including taxonomies, benchmark limitations, domain biases, and robustness risks such as prompt injection.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
AI can generate research artifacts faster than it can verify them, so across all eight lifecycle stages the credible deployment mode is human-governed collaboration rather than full autonomy.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.
-
When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review
GPT-5-mini gives weaker papers systematically higher scores than human reviewers, and hidden field-specific prompts in PDFs can force it to assign perfect scores or suppress weaknesses.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.