To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.16623v1
• Date: Fri, 15 May 2026 20:43:55 GMT
• Title: To Trust or Not to Trust: Authors' Response to AI-based Reviews
• Abstract summary: This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review.<n>Author support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool.
• Score: 1.0435741631709405
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly discussed and used as tools that may assist with scholarly peer review, but empirical evidence regarding how authors use and perceive AI-based feedback remains limited. This paper reports findings from two independent pilot studies on authors' use and perceptions of AI-based auxiliary review at two computer science venues. After the review release, authors were invited to complete an anonymous post-review questionnaire about the AI review's usefulness, trustworthiness, agreement with human reviews, practical value for revision, perceived inaccuracies, and consent. The final dataset included 56 analyzable responses from authors of 40 papers; closed-ended items were summarized using descriptive statistics, and open-ended responses were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Most respondents (83.9%) considered the AI-based review useful, and 80.4% reported that it identified issues not mentioned by human reviewers. This perceived added value translated into action: 82.1% reported using at least some AI feedback in their camera-ready version. However, the authors did not treat the AI review as equivalent to a human review. They generally trusted it less than the human reviews and found human feedback clearer, even though 25.0% described at least some human reviews as not very useful. Reported problems with the AI review were usually limited: 51.8% reported minor inaccuracies, while 16.1% reported clearly incorrect, misleading, or irrelevant comments. Support for future use was strongest when AI was framed as a supervised or author-controlled tool: 96.4% said they would use AI as an internal review tool before future submissions, 89.3% preferred advance notice that AI would be used in review, and 76.8% favored explicit consent before use.

Related papers

• AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing [10.712519962597604]
  We present AppliedScientist, a closed-loop system that couples an autonomous AI scientist with an AI reviewer.<n>We evaluate it by iteratively revising rejected papers from a range of research subfields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T18:59:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• These Aren't the Reviews You're Looking For How Humans Review AI-Generated Pull Requests [0.0]
  We analyze code review interactions for AI-generated pull requests (PRs) on GitHub using the AIDev dataset.<n>We find that most AI-generated PRs receive no review and, when reviewed, are largely dominated by AI agents rather than humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T06:32:50Z)
• 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)
• AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot [45.90272517740283]
  We report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review.<n>Every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T14:51:07Z)
• 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)
• 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 Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing [36.188062803005515]
  Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast.<n>It is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts.<n>Our findings indicate that while AI-augmented writing improves readability, language diversity, and informativeness, it often lacks research details and reflective insights from authors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T02:38:25Z)
• The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates [11.076575064576149]
  We study the prevalence and impact of AI-assisted peer reviews at the 2024 International Conference on Learning Representations. We estimate the impact of AI-assisted reviews on submission scores. We show that AI-assisted reviews are consequential to the peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T14:56:43Z)

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.