Can Large Language Models Be Trusted Paper Reviewers? A Feasibility Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17311v1
• Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:19:18 GMT
• Title: Can Large Language Models Be Trusted Paper Reviewers? A Feasibility Study
• Authors: Chuanlei Li, Xu Hu, Minghui Xu, Kun Li, Yue Zhang, Xiuzhen Cheng,
• Abstract summary: This work explores the feasibility of using Large Language Models (LLMs) for academic paper review.<n>The system integrates Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), the AutoGen multi-agent system, and Chain-of-Thought prompting to support tasks such as format checking, standardized evaluation, comment generation, and scoring.<n>Experiments conducted on 290 submissions from the WASA 2024 conference using GPT-4o show that LLM-based review significantly reduces review time (average 2.48 hours) and cost (average $104.28 USD)
• Score: 24.387202495452886
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Academic paper review typically requires substantial time, expertise, and human resources. Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising method for automating the review process due to their extensive training data, broad knowledge base, and relatively low usage cost. This work explores the feasibility of using LLMs for academic paper review by proposing an automated review system. The system integrates Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), the AutoGen multi-agent system, and Chain-of-Thought prompting to support tasks such as format checking, standardized evaluation, comment generation, and scoring. Experiments conducted on 290 submissions from the WASA 2024 conference using GPT-4o show that LLM-based review significantly reduces review time (average 2.48 hours) and cost (average \$104.28 USD). However, the similarity between LLM-selected papers and actual accepted papers remains low (average 38.6\%), indicating issues such as hallucination, lack of independent judgment, and retrieval preferences. Therefore, it is recommended to use LLMs as assistive tools to support human reviewers, rather than to replace them.

Related papers

• Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation [0.552480439325792]
  We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top LLMs as judges to tackle the difficulty of recruiting domain experts for manual evaluation.<n>This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays the foundation for future applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T06:14:30Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• What do Large Language Models Need for Machine Translation Evaluation? [12.42394213466485]
  Large language models (LLMs) can achieve results comparable to fine-tuned multilingual pre-trained language models. This paper explores what translation information, such as the source, reference, translation errors and annotation guidelines, is needed for LLMs to evaluate machine translation quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T09:50:45Z)
• The emergence of Large Language Models (LLM) as a tool in literature reviews: an LLM automated systematic review [42.112100361891905]
  This study aims to summarize the usage of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the process of creating a scientific review. We look at the range of stages in a review that can be automated and assess the current state-of-the-art research projects in the field.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T20:12:57Z)
• 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)
• RepEval: Effective Text Evaluation with LLM Representation [55.26340302485898]
  RepEval is a metric that leverages the projection of Large Language Models (LLMs) representations for evaluation. Our work underscores the richness of information regarding text quality embedded within LLM representations, offering insights for the development of new metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T13:50:55Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• 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)

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.