LLM assisted writing deserves empirical evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.22124v1
• Date: Sat, 22 Aug 2026 22:38:53 GMT
• Title: LLM assisted writing deserves empirical evaluation
• Abstract summary: An analysis of 69,209 Health Informatics papers links it to more focused presentation, broader citation practices, and more globally distributed authorship.<n>These patterns do not prove better science, but they support evaluating manuscripts by scholarly quality and accountability rather than by tool use.
• Score: 15.490033980314095
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-assisted writing is often treated as a detection problem, as it raises questions about clarity, integrity, equity, and evaluation. An analysis of 69,209 Health Informatics papers links it to more focused presentation, broader citation practices, and more globally distributed authorship. These patterns do not prove better science, but they support evaluating manuscripts by scholarly quality and accountability rather than by tool use.

Related papers

• Large language models for post-publication research evaluation: Evidence from expert recommendations and citation indicators [2.952559770088323]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated research evaluation based on textual content.<n>This study examines whether LLMs can support post-publication peer review tasks by benchmarking their outputs against expert judgments and citation-based indicators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-27T11:32:18Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• LiRA: A Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Readable Literature Review Generation [66.09346158850308]
  We present LiRA (Literature Review Agents), a multi-agent collaborative workflow which emulates the human literature review process.<n>LiRA utilizes specialized agents for content outlining, subsection writing, editing, and reviewing, producing cohesive and comprehensive review articles.<n>We evaluate LiRA in real-world scenarios using document retrieval and assess its robustness to reviewer model variation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-01T12:14:28Z)
• When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review [34.067892820832405]
  This paper presents a systematic evaluation of large language models (LLMs) as academic reviewers.<n>Using a curated dataset of 1,441 papers from ICLR 2023 and NeurIPS 2022, we evaluate GPT-5-mini against human reviewers across ratings, strengths, and weaknesses.<n>Our findings show that LLMs consistently inflate ratings for weaker papers while aligning more closely with human judgments on stronger contributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T00:57:50Z)
• Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback [81.0031690510116]
  We present a structured approach for automated novelty evaluation that models expert reviewer behavior through three stages.<n>Our method is informed by a large scale analysis of human written novelty reviews.<n> Evaluated on 182 ICLR 2025 submissions, the approach achieves 86.5% alignment with human reasoning and 75.3% agreement on novelty conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:18:37Z)
• LLMs can Perform Multi-Dimensional Analytic Writing Assessments: A Case Study of L2 Graduate-Level Academic English Writing [10.239220270988136]
  We use a corpus of literature reviews written by L2 graduate students and assessed by human experts against 9 analytic criteria.<n>To evaluate the quality of feedback comments, we apply a novel feedback comment quality evaluation framework.<n>We find that LLMs can generate reasonably good and generally reliable multi-dimensional analytic assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T02:31:56Z)
• 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)
• Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment [59.09144776166979]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a promising, but controversial, tool in aiding scientific peer review. This study evaluates the usefulness of LLMs in a conference setting as a tool for vetting paper submissions against submission standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T18:58:00Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)

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.