Aspect-Based Sentiment Evolution and its Correlation with Review Rounds in Multi-Round Peer Reviews: A Deep Learning Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.24188v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 06:14:00 GMT
• Title: Aspect-Based Sentiment Evolution and its Correlation with Review Rounds in Multi-Round Peer Reviews: A Deep Learning Approach
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments in peer review comments.<n>We train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models.<n>As the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline.
• Score: 2.654068381694478
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Mining sentiment information from the textual content of peer review comments offers valuable insights into the scientific evaluation process. However, previous studies are often constrained by coarse-grained analysis and the lack of differentiation across review rounds. Notably, the dynamic shifts in reviewers' focus and sentiment tendencies throughout multiple review stages remain underexplored. To address this gap, the present study investigates the distribution and evolution of aspect-level sentiments and examines their correlation with the number of review rounds. We begin by segmenting the multi-round review comments of 11,063 accepted papers from Nature Communications and identifying fine-grained review aspect clusters. A manually annotated corpus of approximately 5,000 review sentences is then constructed. Using this dataset, we train a series of deep learning-based aspect sentiment classification models. Among them, the LCF-BERT-CDM model achieves the best performance, with a Macro-F1 score of 82.65%. Subsequent statistical analysis reveals a consistent trend: as the number of review rounds increases, the proportion of positive sentiments rises, while negative sentiments decline. Correlation analysis further indicates that aspect sentiment scores are negatively associated with the total number of review rounds. Key aspects exhibiting stronger correlations include "experiments", "research significance" and "result analysis".

Related papers

• Which Review Aspect Has a Greater Impact on the Duration of Open Peer Review in Multiple Rounds? -- Evidence from Nature Communications [4.536998653366957]
  This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration.<n>It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-20T06:41:26Z)
• FMMD: A multimodal open peer review dataset based on F1000Research [2.375184015411392]
  FMMD is a multimodal and multidisciplinary open peer review dataset curated from F1000Research.<n>It bridges the current gap by integrating manuscript-level visual and structural data with version-specific reviewer reports and editorial decisions.<n>It provides a comprehensive empirical resource for the development of peer review research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T19:36:05Z)
• 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)
• Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process [11.96840383745149]
  We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes.<n>We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects.<n>Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T14:21:52Z)
• 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)
• In-depth Research Impact Summarization through Fine-Grained Temporal Citation Analysis [52.42612945266194]
  We propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries.<n>We show that these summaries capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T19:11:06Z)
• 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)
• Decomposed Opinion Summarization with Verified Aspect-Aware Modules [82.38097397662436]
  We propose a domain-agnostic modular approach guided by review aspects.<n>We conduct experiments across datasets representing scientific research, business, and product domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-27T09:29:55Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis via Joint Aspect-Sentiment Topic Embedding [71.2260967797055]
  We propose a weakly-supervised approach for aspect-based sentiment analysis. We learn sentiment, aspect> joint topic embeddings in the word embedding space. We then use neural models to generalize the word-level discriminative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T21:33:24Z)
• A Unified Dual-view Model for Review Summarization and Sentiment Classification with Inconsistency Loss [51.448615489097236]
  Acquiring accurate summarization and sentiment from user reviews is an essential component of modern e-commerce platforms. We propose a novel dual-view model that jointly improves the performance of these two tasks. Experiment results on four real-world datasets from different domains demonstrate the effectiveness of our model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-02T13:34:11Z)

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.