Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.20214v1
• Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2026 19:23:04 GMT
• Title: Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge
• Abstract summary: Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment.<n>This paper presents discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences.<n>We find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities.<n>We argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls
• Score: 7.402573615005516
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review workflows, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment. While these systems promise efficiency gains amid growing reviewer overload, their use introduces new sociotechnical risks. This paper presents a convergent mixed-method study combining discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences to examine how GenAI is discussed and experienced in peer review. Across both datasets, we find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, such as improving clarity or structuring feedback, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities. At the same time, participants highlight concerns about epistemic harm, over-standardization, unclear responsibility, and adversarial risks such as prompt injection. User interviews reveal how structural strain and institutional policy ambiguity shift interpretive and enforcement burdens onto individual scholars, disproportionately affecting junior authors and reviewers. By triangulating public governance discourse with lived review practices, this work reframes AI mediated peer review as a sociotechnical governance challenge and offers recommendations for preserving accountability, trust, and meaningful human oversight. Overall, we argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls that preserve accountability. We conclude with role specific recommendations that formalize the support judgment boundary.

Related papers

• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews [69.66583722746904]
  We introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions.<n>We propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews.<n>Our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-21T14:21:15Z)
• Man and machine: artificial intelligence and judicial decision making [0.0]
  We conduct a synthetic review connecting three aspects of AI's role in judicial decision-making.<n>The impact of AI decision-aid tools on pretrial and sentencing decisions is modest or nonexistent.<n>We argue that AI-versus-human comparisons have the potential to yield new insights into both algorithmic tools and human decision-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T15:38:50Z)
• What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews? [9.57486570505445]
  Advocates see AI's potential to reduce reviewer burden and improve quality, while critics warn of risks to fairness, accountability, and trust.<n>At ICLR 2025, an official AI feedback tool was deployed to provide reviewers with post-review suggestions.<n>This work contributes the first empirical evidence of such an AI tool in a live review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T15:22:33Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• AI and the Future of Academic Peer Review [0.1622854284766506]
  Large language models (LLMs) are being piloted across the peer-review pipeline by journals, funders, and individual reviewers.<n>Early studies suggest that AI assistance can produce reviews comparable in quality to humans.<n>We show that supervised LLM assistance can improve error detection, timeliness, and reviewer workload without displacing human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-17T17:27:12Z)
• CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
  We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
• 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)
• Responsible AI Considerations in Text Summarization Research: A Review of Current Practices [89.85174013619883]
  We focus on text summarization, a common NLP task largely overlooked by the responsible AI community. We conduct a multi-round qualitative analysis of 333 summarization papers from the ACL Anthology published between 2020-2022. We focus on how, which, and when responsible AI issues are covered, which relevant stakeholders are considered, and mismatches between stated and realized research goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T15:35:36Z)
• A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer Review [0.0]
  Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) systems offer promise and peril for scholarly peer review. Human peer review systems are also fraught with related problems, such as biases, abuses, and a lack of transparency. The legitimacy of AI-driven peer review hinges on the alignment with the scientific ethos.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T18:14:10Z)

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.