LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.25057v1
• Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:12:39 GMT
• Title: LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
• Abstract summary: This survey offers a systems-level analysis of large language models (LLMs)-based scientific peer review.<n>We focus on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction.<n>We identify emerging risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking.
• Score: 4.655159257282136
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

Related papers

• 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)
• DREAM: Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics [21.555357444628044]
  We propose DREAM (Deep Research Evaluation with Agentic Metrics), a framework that makes evaluation itself agentic.<n> DREAM structures assessment through an evaluation protocol combining query-agnostic metrics with adaptive metrics generated by a tool-calling agent.<n>Controlled evaluations demonstrate DREAM is significantly more sensitive to factual and temporal decay than existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T19:14:31Z)
• The Story is Not the Science: Execution-Grounded Evaluation of Mechanistic Interpretability Research [56.80927148740585]
  We address the challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators.<n>We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent.<n>Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T19:00:02Z)
• When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs [8.575522204707958]
  Large language models (LLMs) grow in capability and autonomy, evaluating their outputs-especially in open-ended and complex tasks-has become a critical bottleneck.<n>A new paradigm is emerging: using AI agents as the evaluators themselves.<n>In this review, we define the agent-as-a-judge concept, trace its evolution from single-model judges to dynamic multi-agent debate frameworks, and critically examine their strengths and shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T01:42:25Z)
• 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)
• Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents [28.91672694491855]
  The emergence of LLM-based agents represents a paradigm shift in AI.<n>This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methodologies for these increasingly capable agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:59:23Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review [36.05498398665352]
  We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review.<n>Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the peer review process-papers, reviews, and rebuttals-across several quality aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:50:06Z)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  The escalating volume of academic research, coupled with a shortage of qualified reviewers, necessitates innovative approaches to peer review.<n>We propose ReviewEval, a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews that measures alignment with human assessments, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, identifies degree of constructiveness and adherence to reviewer guidelines.<n>This paper establishes essential metrics for AIbased peer review and substantially enhances the reliability and impact of AI-generated reviews in academic research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• A Survey of Automatic Hallucination Evaluation on Natural Language Generation [21.37538215193138]
  The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has brought a pressing challenge: how to reliably assess hallucinations to guarantee model trustworthiness.<n>This survey addresses this critical gap through a systematic analysis of 105 evaluation methods, revealing that 77.1% specifically target LLMs.<n>We formulate a structured framework to organize the field, based on a survey of foundational datasets and benchmarks and a taxonomy of evaluation methodologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T09:52:18Z)
• 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)

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.