The State of Peer Review in Empirical Software Engineering: A Community Survey on Review Load, Quality, and GenAI Use

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.04716v1
• Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2026 10:49:16 GMT
• Title: The State of Peer Review in Empirical Software Engineering: A Community Survey on Review Load, Quality, and GenAI Use
• Abstract summary: The scientific peer review system has been slowly deteriorating over the last years.<n>The rise of generative AI use with all its associated issues have made many cracks in the system more visible.<n>We report on (i) the perceived review load of community members, (ii) review quality perception as well as frequent challenges for and issues with reviews, (iii) the use of LLM-based tools in the reviewing process, and (iv) the community's suggestions for improving the peer review system.
• Score: 7.447436322111677
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The scientific peer review system has been slowly deteriorating over the last years, and not just within empirical software engineering (ESE) research. Increased submission numbers, high workload, and the rise of generative AI use with all its associated issues have made many cracks in the system more visible. To get a better understanding of the current state of peer review in the ESE community, we conducted a questionnaire survey, which accumulated 120 responses. We report on (i) the perceived review load of community members, (ii) review quality perception as well as frequent challenges for and issues with reviews, (iii) the use of LLM-based tools in the reviewing process, and (iv) the community's suggestions for improving the peer review system. We hope that these community opinions can facilitate more evidence-based discussions about how people want to see the review system change for the better.

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)
• 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)
• Towards A Sustainable Future for Peer Review in Software Engineering [5.42073906150267]
  The rapid growth of paper submissions in software engineering venues has outpaced the availability of qualified reviewers.<n>Our vision of the Future of the SE research landscape involves a more scalable, inclusive, and resilient peer review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T14:14:44Z)
• Is Peer Review Really in Decline? Analyzing Review Quality across Venues and Time [55.756345497678204]
  We introduce a new framework for evidence-based comparative study of review quality.<n>We apply it to major AI and machine learning conferences: ICLR, NeurIPS and *ACL.<n>We study the relationships between measurements of review quality, and its evolution over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T16:48:29Z)
• ReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer Review [23.630458187587223]
  ReviewerToo is a framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review.<n>It supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria.<n>We show how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T23:53:19Z)
• 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)
• Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards [2.8239108914343305]
  This paper argues for the need to transform the traditional one-way review system into a bi-directional feedback loop.<n>Authors evaluate review quality and reviewers earn formal accreditation, creating an accountability framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T05:51:48Z)
• Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025 [115.86204862475864]
  Review Feedback Agent provides automated feedback on vague comments, content misunderstandings, and unprofessional remarks to reviewers.<n>It was implemented at ICLR 2025 as a large randomized control study.<n> 27% of reviewers who received feedback updated their reviews, and over 12,000 feedback suggestions from the agent were incorporated by those reviewers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T22:01:25Z)
• Identifying Aspects in Peer Reviews [59.02879434536289]
  We develop a data-driven schema for deriving aspects from a corpus of peer reviews.<n>We introduce a dataset of peer reviews augmented with aspects and show how it can be used for community-level review analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T14:14:42Z)
• Continually Improving Extractive QA via Human Feedback [59.49549491725224]
  We study continually improving an extractive question answering (QA) system via human user feedback. We conduct experiments involving thousands of user interactions under diverse setups to broaden the understanding of learning from feedback over time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:35:32Z)
• Measuring "Why" in Recommender Systems: a Comprehensive Survey on the Evaluation of Explainable Recommendation [87.82664566721917]
  This survey is based on more than 100 papers from top-tier conferences like IJCAI, AAAI, TheWebConf, Recsys, UMAP, and IUI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-14T02:58:55Z)

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.