When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.23593v1
• Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2026 08:03:32 GMT
• Title: When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 73.47745294608072
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

Related papers

• PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress [130.58520199343707]
  PaperDoctor is an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations.<n>First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments.<n>Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion.<n>Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:08:11Z)
• AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality [39.33746637947531]
  We survey reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals.<n>We evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-04T12:34:47Z)
• 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)
• BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? [21.78901120638025]
  We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T18:37:11Z)
• ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detection via LLM-Driven Data Augmentation [3.9199635838637072]
  ReviewGuard is an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews.<n>It produces a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews.<n> deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T15:45:26Z)
• 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)
• When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review [34.067892820832405]
  This paper presents a systematic evaluation of large language models (LLMs) as academic reviewers.<n>Using a curated dataset of 1,441 papers from ICLR 2023 and NeurIPS 2022, we evaluate GPT-5-mini against human reviewers across ratings, strengths, and weaknesses.<n>Our findings show that LLMs consistently inflate ratings for weaker papers while aligning more closely with human judgments on stronger contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T00:57:50Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.