Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.17667v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2026 23:40:26 GMT
• Title: Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews
• Abstract summary: Peerispect is an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews.<n>Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper.
• Score: 12.340116689292726
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

Related papers

• ReGround: Grounding Reviewer Comments in Multimodal Evidence [65.14860452709777]
  Reviewer comments naturally relate to specific parts of the reviewed paper, yet grounding these comments to the underlying evidence is difficult due to long multimodal documents.<n>We introduce ReGround, a large-scale dataset for reviewer comment grounding that links 10,267 reviewer comments to 16,274 evidence in the original anonymous submission of 3,656 papers.<n>Results show that retrieval over the entire paper content performs poorly, evidence-type inference is a major bottleneck, and multimodal evidence provides complementary signals that text alone misses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T12:32:58Z)
• ActReview: Rebuttal-Guided Training Data and Rubric Rewards for Actionable Peer Review Generation [54.82704239643649]
  We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans.<n>Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback.<n>We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-08T17:30:16Z)
• From Passive Generation to Investigation: A Proactive Scientific Peer Review Agent [52.42081442204093]
  We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper.<n>We propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log.<n> Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T13:38:23Z)
• Review the Code, Not the Story: A Vision and Protocol for Code-First Peer Review [2.531440973296736]
  This vision and protocol paper proposes code-first peer review.<n>Authors submit executable research artifacts and minimal claim manifests.<n>A venue-controlled AI system builds the environment, executes experiments, audits code paths, maps claims to evidence, and generates a standardized Review Package for human reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T01:26:07Z)
• 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)
• ReviewGrounder: Improving Review Substantiveness with Rubric-Guided, Tool-Integrated Agents [50.27474750319121]
  Review text according to paper-specific rubrics derived from official guidelines, the paper's content, and human-written reviews.<n>We introduce REVIEWBENCH, a benchmark evaluating review text according to paper-specific rubrics derived from official guidelines, the paper's content, and human-written reviews.<n>We propose REVIEWGROUNDER, a rubric-guided, tool-integrated multi-agent framework that decomposes reviewing into drafting and grounding stages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T16:33:04Z)
• FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification [57.196748998757954]
  We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification.<n>Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository.<n>It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:45:22Z)
• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• What Drives Paper Acceptance? A Process-Centric Analysis of Modern Peer Review [2.9282248958475345]
  We present a large-scale empirical study of ICLR 2017-2025, encompassing over 28,000 submissions.<n>Our results show that factors beyond scientific novelty significantly shape acceptance outcomes.<n>We propose data-driven guidelines for authors, reviewers, and meta-reviewers to enhance transparency and fairness in peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T03:00:10Z)
• LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews [74.87393214734114]
  This work introduces LazyReview, a dataset of peer-review sentences annotated with fine-grained lazy thinking categories.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to detect these instances in a zero-shot setting.<n> instruction-based fine-tuning on our dataset significantly boosts performance by 10-20 performance points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T10:07:33Z)
• Paper Quality Assessment based on Individual Wisdom Metrics from Open Peer Review [4.35783648216893]
  Traditional closed peer review systems are slow, costly, non-transparent, and possibly subject to biases.<n>We propose and examine the efficacy and accuracy of an alternative form of scientific peer review: through an open, bottom-up process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T17:00:27Z)
• When Reviewers Lock Horn: Finding Disagreement in Scientific Peer Reviews [24.875901048855077]
  We introduce a novel task of automatically identifying contradictions among reviewers on a given article. To the best of our knowledge, we make the first attempt to identify disagreements among peer reviewers automatically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T11:57:51Z)

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.