Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.03202v1
• Date: Mon, 04 May 2026 22:41:04 GMT
• Title: Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
• Abstract summary: This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
• Score: 51.53099943385505
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

Related papers

• 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)
• No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions [43.03725702558361]
  We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results.<n>The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure.<n>Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T08:30:18Z)
• Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community [33.39468805524881]
  We show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation.<n>We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers.<n>Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T20:38:06Z)
• Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions [4.04252733799147]
  We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review.<n>To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, emphAI-Paper-Review, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T05:05:26Z)
• On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists [113.03797263688519]
  Many scientists view AI reviewers as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research.<n>Existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T03:33:55Z)
• 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)
• Writing literature reviews with AI: principles, hurdles and some lessons learned [0.15554979526414522]
  We compare literature reviews produced with varying degrees of AI assistance.<n>Our comparison of six versions shows a series of pitfalls and suggests precautions necessary when using AI assistance to make a literature review.<n>Overall, AI can improve the span and quality of the review, but the gain of time is not as massive as one would expect, and a press-button strategy leaving AI to do the work is a recipe for disaster.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-08T18:02:09Z)
• ReviewScore: Misinformed Peer Review Detection with Large Language Models [38.92827930465428]
  We show that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed.<n>We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation.<n>We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T22:55:05Z)
• REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  We evaluate how well a reasoning LLM trained with multi-objective reinforcement learning (REMOR) can overcome limitations.<n>REMOR achieves more than twice the average rewards of human reviews, non-reasoning state-of-the-art agentic multi-modal AI review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T22:00:49Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing? [89.50052670307434]
  We discuss the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. We collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T07:16:53Z)

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.