What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.06563v1
• Date: Fri, 10 May 2024 16:06:43 GMT
• Title: What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?
• Authors: Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen, Nils Dycke, Alexander Goldberg, Tom Hope, Dirk Hovy, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Anne Lauscher, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Sheng Lu, Mausam, Margot Mieskes, Aurélie Névéol, Danish Pruthi, Lizhen Qu, Roy Schwartz, Noah A. Smith, Thamar Solorio, Jingyan Wang, Xiaodan Zhu, Anna Rogers, Nihar B. Shah, Iryna Gurevych,
• Abstract summary: In modern science, peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance.
• Score: 173.8912784451817
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

Related papers

• GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study [0.0]
  GPT4 was developed to assist in the peer-review process. By comparing reviews generated by both human reviewers and GPT models for academic papers submitted to a major machine learning conference, we provide initial evidence that artificial intelligence can contribute effectively to the peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-16T23:11:06Z)
• NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review [58.71736531356398]
  We introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. We augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-12T12:29:38Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• Automated scholarly paper review: Concepts, technologies, and challenges [5.431798850623952]
  Recent years have seen the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in assisting the peer review process. With the involvement of humans, such limitations remain inevitable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T04:44:57Z)
• Ranking Scientific Papers Using Preference Learning [48.78161994501516]
  We cast it as a paper ranking problem based on peer review texts and reviewer scores. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for making final decisions based on peer reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-02T19:41:47Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)
• Argument Mining Driven Analysis of Peer-Reviews [4.552676857046446]
  We propose an Argument Mining based approach for the assistance of editors, meta-reviewers, and reviewers. One of our findings is that arguments used in the peer-review process differ from arguments in other domains making the transfer of pre-trained models difficult. We provide the community with a new peer-review dataset from different computer science conferences with annotated arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-10T16:06:21Z)
• What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP? [69.11622020605431]
  We argue that a part of the problem is that the reviewers and area chairs face a poorly defined task forcing apples-to-oranges comparisons. There are several potential ways forward, but the key difficulty is creating the incentives and mechanisms for their consistent implementation in the NLP community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-08T09:32:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.