{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2026:23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH","short_pith_number":"pith:23UZLL5X","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"d6e995afb71400470e1d33d020b6f629fd0e36fa775617186de07bd29a5c87f3","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2605.16623","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews.","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"C\\'esar Leblanc, Lukas Picek","submitted_at":"2026-05-15T20:43:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":true,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2605.16623","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CY","submitted_at":"2026-05-15T20:43:55Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI"],"title_canon_sha256":"8496db0c1dcf350e9a9c0f1ef153347feee1985f1b8676e5b6631eb03c66a773","abstract_canon_sha256":"a52be7e8a3decf144916de20bcd76b4027074922e61c372e88a7e06a91fd7842"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007914Z","signature_b64":"PfJimVtzAFkStsAZkjjbtlXXwyy5Q+2n6ZEVOQKaeIhEEidKYzbgQ4e25Jv2n4CyzqvCSOYkuHOHbOGo0sHPBQ==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"d6e995afb71400470e1d33d020b6f629fd0e36fa775617186de07bd29a5c87f3","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007113Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007113Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","headline":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews.","cross_cats":["cs.AI"],"primary_cat":"cs.CY","authors_text":"C\\'esar Leblanc, Lukas Picek","submitted_at":"2026-05-15T20:43:55Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and"},"claims":{"count":4,"items":[{"kind":"strongest_claim","text":"Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers, and 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version.","source":"verdict.strongest_claim","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C1","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"weakest_assumption","text":"The 56 responses from a self-selected subset of authors at two specific CS venues are representative enough to support general statements about author perceptions of AI reviews; the paper relies on this without reporting response rate or testing for non-response bias.","source":"verdict.weakest_assumption","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C2","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"one_line_summary","text":"Survey of 56 authors at two CS venues finds 84% viewed AI reviews as useful and 82% used some feedback in revisions, yet trusted them less than human reviews and preferred supervised deployment.","source":"verdict.one_line_summary","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C3","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"headline","text":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews.","source":"verdict.pith_extraction.headline","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C4","attestation":"unclaimed"}],"snapshot_sha256":"e4c3d6cd62129ef9260f2a29be02ba1e75ded8f32ca6fa19319f57a5af7038c1"},"source":{"id":"2605.16623","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":"8373c078-20f3-4e34-8ef4-59304f8c552b","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"created_at":"2026-05-19T20:43:00.069733Z","strongest_claim":"Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers, and 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version.","one_line_summary":"Survey of 56 authors at two CS venues finds 84% viewed AI reviews as useful and 82% used some feedback in revisions, yet trusted them less than human reviews and preferred supervised deployment.","pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v0.9.0","weakest_assumption":"The 56 responses from a self-selected subset of authors at two specific CS venues are representative enough to support general statements about author perceptions of AI reviews; the paper relies on this without reporting response rate or testing for non-response bias.","pith_extraction_headline":"Authors at CS venues found AI-based reviews useful enough to use in revisions, though they trusted them less than human reviews."},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2605.16623/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[{"name":"doi_title_agreement","ran_at":"2026-05-19T21:01:19.327839Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"doi_compliance","ran_at":"2026-05-19T20:51:22.695490Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"claim_evidence","ran_at":"2026-05-19T19:21:56.763970Z","status":"completed","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0},{"name":"ai_meta_artifact","ran_at":"2026-05-19T18:33:26.586504Z","status":"skipped","version":"1.0.0","findings_count":0}],"snapshot_sha256":"360deb1e92590a76d1a1411d2ba48f2daa58360d36b8f601d20bcc9b83b7dcfa"},"references":{"count":51,"sample":[{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"https://aaai","work_id":"f71b9220-f8b1-49d1-8a26-751ca4117f44","ref_index":1,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(5):e2401232121","work_id":"2c497100-ac14-430c-8e28-cda9a100be97","ref_index":2,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 8:1622292","work_id":"790d4259-5a35-4e3d-b3e5-4210169d9718","ref_index":3,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"Bhavsar D, Duffy L, Jo H, et al (2025) Policies on artificial intelligence chatbots among academicpublishers:across-sectionalaudit.ResearchIntegrityandPeerReview10(1):1","work_id":"44c71f7c-8871-4bc8-947c-a62bc36f985b","ref_index":4,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2006,"title":"Qualitative research in psychology 3(2):77–101","work_id":"d1b4828c-c8e1-438c-9e4c-5edc3e8160ee","ref_index":5,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false}],"resolved_work":51,"snapshot_sha256":"72f3ba0cc43fdacbe1ccfeab1bc4b40ea5c42e89ccb3cf01601385b5af6beff9","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2605.16623","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2605.16623v1","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2605.16623","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"23UZLL5XCQAE","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"23UZLL5X","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":0,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH","json":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/23UZLL5X"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/23UZLL5X","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2605.16623&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/23UZLL5XCQAEODQ5GPICBNXWFH/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-20T00:02:33.007258+00:00"}