Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01708v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:55:03 GMT
• Title: Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review
• Authors: Rui Ye, Xianghe Pang, Jingyi Chai, Jiaao Chen, Zhenfei Yin, Zhen Xiang, Xiaowen Dong, Jing Shao, Siheng Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
• Score: 66.73247554182376
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Scholarly peer review is a cornerstone of scientific advancement, but the system is under strain due to increasing manuscript submissions and the labor-intensive nature of the process. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review, with promising results such as substantial overlaps between LLM- and human-generated reviews. However, the unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system. In this study, we comprehensively analyze the vulnerabilities of LLM-generated reviews by focusing on manipulation and inherent flaws. Our experiments show that injecting covert deliberate content into manuscripts allows authors to explicitly manipulate LLM reviews, leading to inflated ratings and reduced alignment with human reviews. In a simulation, we find that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings. Implicit manipulation, where authors strategically highlight minor limitations in their papers, further demonstrates LLMs' susceptibility compared to human reviewers, with a 4.5 times higher consistency with disclosed limitations. Additionally, LLMs exhibit inherent flaws, such as potentially assigning higher ratings to incomplete papers compared to full papers and favoring well-known authors in single-blind review process. These findings highlight the risks of over-reliance on LLMs in peer review, underscoring that we are not yet ready for widespread adoption and emphasizing the need for robust safeguards.

Related papers

• Detecting LLM-Written Peer Reviews [37.51215252353345]
  There is growing concern about the rise of lazy reviewing practices, where reviewers use large language models (LLMs) to generate reviews instead of writing them independently. Existing tools for detecting LLM-generated content are not designed to differentiate between fully LLM-generated reviews and those merely polished by an LLM. In this work, we employ a straightforward approach to identify LLM-generated reviews - doing an indirect prompt injection via the paper PDF to ask the LLM to embed a watermark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T01:11:35Z)
• Automatically Evaluating the Paper Reviewing Capability of Large Language Models [46.0003776499898]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for providing assistance, but research has reported significant limitations in the reviews they generate. We developed an automatic evaluation pipeline to assess the LLMs' paper review capability by comparing them with expert-generated reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T12:05:27Z)
• AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews [18.50142644126276]
  We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. We fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-19T19:10:38Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment [8.948475969696075]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors used in real-world situations such as assessing written exams and benchmarking systems. We show that short universal adversarial phrases can be deceived to judge LLMs to predict inflated scores. It is found that judge-LLMs are significantly more susceptible to these adversarial attacks when used for absolute scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:55:20Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Appraising the Potential Uses and Harms of LLMs for Medical Systematic Reviews [21.546144601311187]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer potential to automatically generate literature reviews on demand. LLMs sometimes generate inaccurate (and potentially misleading) texts by hallucination or omission.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:09:19Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

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.