Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey

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 2501.10326 v2 pith:QUK66XFY submitted 2025-01-17 cs.AI cs.CLcs.DL

classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.DL
keywords llmsasprreviewsurveyacademiaautomatedchallengesdevelopment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly impacted human society, influencing various domains. Among them, academia is not simply a domain affected by LLMs, but it is also the pivotal force in the development of LLMs. In academic publication, this phenomenon is represented during the incorporation of LLMs into the peer review mechanism for reviewing manuscripts. LLMs hold transformative potential for the full-scale implementation of automated scholarly paper review (ASPR), but they also pose new issues and challenges that need to be addressed. In this survey paper, we aim to provide a holistic view of ASPR in the era of LLMs. We begin with a survey to find out which LLMs are used to conduct ASPR. Then, we review what ASPR-related technological bottlenecks have been solved with the incorporation of LLM technology. After that, we move on to explore new methods, new datasets, new source code, and new online systems that come with LLMs for ASPR. Furthermore, we summarize the performance and issues of LLMs in ASPR, and investigate the attitudes and reactions of publishers and academia to ASPR. Lastly, we discuss the challenges and future directions associated with the development of LLMs for ASPR. This survey serves as an inspirational reference for the researchers and can promote the progress of ASPR for its actual implementation.

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. How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.

  2. Research quality evaluation by AI in the era of Large Language Models: Advantages, disadvantages, and systemic effects

    cs.DL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review arguing LLM-based quality scores could surpass bibliometrics in accuracy and coverage, but with unknown biases and gaming risks that currently block real-world use.

Pith tools