Identity Theft in AI Conference Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.04024v1
• Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2025 02:36:52 GMT
• Title: Identity Theft in AI Conference Peer Review
• Authors: Nihar B. Shah, Melisa Bok, Xukun Liu, Andrew McCallum,
• Abstract summary: We discuss newly uncovered cases of identity theft in the scientific peer-review process within artificial intelligence (AI) research.<n>We detail how dishonest researchers exploit the peer-review system by creating fraudulent reviewer profiles to manipulate paper evaluations.
• Score: 50.18240135317708
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We discuss newly uncovered cases of identity theft in the scientific peer-review process within artificial intelligence (AI) research, with broader implications for other academic procedures. We detail how dishonest researchers exploit the peer-review system by creating fraudulent reviewer profiles to manipulate paper evaluations, leveraging weaknesses in reviewer recruitment workflows and identity verification processes. The findings highlight the critical need for stronger safeguards against identity theft in peer review and academia at large, and to this end, we also propose mitigating strategies.

Related papers

• A Decentralized Framework for Ethical Authorship Validation in Academic Publishing: Leveraging Self-Sovereign Identity and Blockchain Technology [0.0]
  Unconsented authorship, gift authorship, author ambiguity, and undisclosed conflicts of interest threaten academic publishing.<n>This paper introduces a decentralized framework leveraging Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) and blockchain technology.<n>A blockchain-based trust registry records authorship consent and peer-review activity immutably.<n>This work represents a step toward a more transparent, accountable, and trustworthy academic publishing ecosystem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-03T20:26:19Z)
• DATABench: Evaluating Dataset Auditing in Deep Learning from an Adversarial Perspective [59.66984417026933]
  We introduce a novel taxonomy, classifying existing methods based on their reliance on internal features (IF) (inherent to the data) versus external features (EF) (artificially introduced for auditing)<n>We formulate two primary attack types: evasion attacks, designed to conceal the use of a dataset, and forgery attacks, intending to falsely implicate an unused dataset.<n>Building on the understanding of existing methods and attack objectives, we further propose systematic attack strategies: decoupling, removal, and detection for evasion; adversarial example-based methods for forgery.<n>Our benchmark, DATABench, comprises 17 evasion attacks, 5 forgery attacks, and 9
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T03:07:15Z)
• The AI Imperative: Scaling High-Quality Peer Review in Machine Learning [49.87236114682497]
  We argue that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority.<n>We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T18:37:14Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [61.374437855024844]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Review [6.20631177269082]
  A new risk to the peer review process is that negligent reviewers will rely on large language models (LLMs) to review a paper.<n>We introduce a comprehensive dataset containing a total of 788,984 AI-written peer reviews paired with corresponding human reviews.<n>We use this new resource to evaluate the ability of 18 existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews fully written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T23:04:05Z)
• AI-based Identity Fraud Detection: A Systematic Review [1.8150583821390123]
  This paper reviews a selected set of 43 papers across 4 major academic literature databases.<n>Results highlight the two types of identity fraud prevention and detection methods, in-depth and open challenges.<n>Overall, this paper provides a foundational knowledge base to researchers and practitioners for further research and development in this important area of digital identity fraud.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-16T01:52:30Z)
• Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Review [8.606381080620789]
  We investigate the ability of existing AI text detection algorithms to distinguish between peer reviews written by humans and different state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>Our analysis shows that existing approaches fail to identify many GPT-4o written reviews without also producing a high number of false positive classifications.<n>We propose a new detection approach which surpasses existing methods in the identification of GPT-4o written peer reviews at low levels of false positive classifications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T22:05:06Z)
• On the Detection of Reviewer-Author Collusion Rings From Paper Bidding [71.43634536456844]
  Collusion rings pose a major threat to the peer-review systems of computer science conferences. One approach to solve this problem would be to detect the colluding reviewers from their manipulated bids. No research has yet established that detecting collusion rings is even possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-12T18:12:09Z)
• A Dataset on Malicious Paper Bidding in Peer Review [84.68308372858755]
  Malicious reviewers strategically bid in order to unethically manipulate the paper assignment. A critical impediment towards creating and evaluating methods to mitigate this issue is the lack of publicly-available data on malicious paper bidding. We release a novel dataset, collected from a mock conference activity where participants were instructed to bid either honestly or maliciously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-24T20:23:33Z)
• Making Paper Reviewing Robust to Bid Manipulation Attacks [44.34601846490532]
  Anecdotal evidence suggests that some reviewers bid on papers by "friends" or colluding authors. We develop a novel approach for paper bidding and assignment that is much more robust against such attacks. In addition to being more robust, the quality of our paper review assignments is comparable to that of current, non-robust assignment approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-09T21:24:16Z)

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.