Paper Citation Record · LEDGER

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts?

As of 9 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 8 of 8 outbound references and 0 inbound Pith citation observations for arXiv:2607.25965.

A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.

pith.paper-citation-record.v1
2607.25965 v1

Coverage vector

measured 8 of 8 reference resolution

Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:27.338316Z

measured 8 of 8 standing notices

One-hop event checks from named stored sources.

Source: scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache, observed 2026-08-09T06:31:02.800959+00:00

measured 0 of 0 inbound itemization

Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links

measured 0 of 1 external citation measurements

A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.

Source: cited_works

Reference resolution

8 of 8 outbound references displayed

verified exact0
verified fuzzy0
unresolved8
parse uncertain0
malformed identifier0
metadata mismatch0

External citation measurements

No source-named external measurement is stored.

Outbound references

Observation face654c-dcb4-47ab-94b5-b7677cdc193d · outbound

This paper cites an unresolved cited work.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? Unresolved cited work

Reference 1

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:26.676742Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation fd639edd-4566-4329-afea-f649dc9cd9e0 · outbound

This paper cites an unresolved cited work.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? Unresolved cited work

Reference 2

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:26.773167Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 38df5d52-c7c2-410c-98ed-cd57f4006361 · outbound

This paper cites an unresolved cited work.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? Unresolved cited work

Reference 3

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:26.916631Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 31502fbc-a7ee-483a-9423-83e1bf04dc57 · outbound

This paper cites conclude.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? conclude

Reference 4

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:27.009127Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 5488228f-74d6-45ee-bff5-138f1dccd94e · outbound

This paper cites conclude.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? conclude

Reference 5

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:27.145178Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 006af246-e413-409e-9c4c-1672ceb45151 · outbound

This paper cites Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation

Reference 6

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:27.226198Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 641ae29e-6008-4a7a-a733-39505d3c9abc · outbound

This paper cites mistake”, “omitted.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? mistake”, “omitted

Reference 2000

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:26.597271Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Observation 3088c834-6f7c-42d3-86a1-0bdda2ecb012 · outbound

This paper cites Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025.

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts? Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025

Reference 2025

Resolution: unresolved; no resolver link, observed 2026-08-01T01:01:27.338316Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

Pith citing papers

No inbound Pith citation observations are available.