Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance

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 2405.20477 v2 pith:3JS63T4A submitted 2024-05-30 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords scientificfeedbackwritingfocusedassistanceautomatedgenerationhuman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Scientific writing is a challenging task, particularly for novice researchers who often rely on feedback from experienced peers. Recent work has primarily focused on improving surface form and style rather than manuscript content. In this paper, we propose a novel task: automated focused feedback generation for scientific writing assistance. We present SWIF$^{2}$T: a Scientific WrIting Focused Feedback Tool. It is designed to generate specific, actionable and coherent comments, which identify weaknesses in a scientific paper and/or propose revisions to it. Our approach consists of four components - planner, investigator, reviewer and controller - leveraging multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) to implement them. We compile a dataset of 300 peer reviews citing weaknesses in scientific papers and conduct human evaluation. The results demonstrate the superiority in specificity, reading comprehension, and overall helpfulness of SWIF$^{2}$T's feedback compared to other approaches. In our analysis, we also identified cases where automatically generated reviews were judged better than human ones, suggesting opportunities for integration of AI-generated feedback in scientific writing.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 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. CoachGPT: A Scaffolding-based Academic Writing Assistant

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A scaffolding-based LLM writing assistant with an 11-stage workflow is presented, but its three-person qualitative evaluation does not support the paper's claim to prove usefulness.

  3. A Comprehensive Survey of Deep Research: Systems, Methodologies, and Applications

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey of 80+ Deep Research systems that proposes a four-layer taxonomy (foundation models, tool use, planning, synthesis) and compares commercial and open-source implementations.

  4. Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A survey that classifies AI agent evaluation benchmarks along environment and capability axes, and proposes five traits that distinguish agents from chatbots.

Pith tools