Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review
Open accessAbstract
Author response (rebuttal) writing is a critical stage of scientific peer review that demands substantial author effort. In practice, authors possess domain expertise, author-only information, and response strategies - concrete forms of author expertise and intent - and seek NLP assistance that integrates these signals into author response generation (ARG). Yet this author-in-the-loop paradigm lacks formal NLP formulation and systematic study: no dataset provides fine-grained author signals, existing ARG work lacks author inputs and controls, and no evaluation measures response reflection of author signals and effectiveness in addressing reviewer concerns. To fill these gaps, we introduce (i) Re3Align, the first large-scale dataset of aligned review-response-revision triplets, where revisions proxy author signals; (ii) REspGen, an author-in-the-loop ARG framework supporting flexible author input, multi-attribute control, and evaluation-guided refinement; and (iii) REspEval, a comprehensive evaluation suite with 20+ metrics spanning input utilization, controllability, response quality, and discourse. Experiments with SOTA LLMs demonstrate the benefits of author input and evaluation-guided refinement, the impact of input specificity on response quality, and controllability-quality trade-offs. We release our dataset, generation and evaluation tools.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Recent author-in-the-loop work shows that effective response generation benefits from explicit author signals, controllable planning, and evaluation-guided refinement.
“Recent author-inthe-loop work (Ruan and Gurevych, 2026) also shows that effective response generation benefits from explicit author signals, controllable planning, and evaluation-guided refinement.”
From Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future (2026) · cites this paper as Ruan and Gurevych, 2026
The retrieved passages contain metadata and the paper’s abstract, but no section or page from the paper’s body. Searches for author signals, controllable planning, and evaluation-guided refinement did not retrieve body text that could verify what the study shows. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future
Wu, S., Jiang, O., Zhao, Y., Hu, T., Ma, Y., Zhang, K., Patwardhan, M., & Cohan, A. (2026) · Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.1504 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ruan, Q., & Gurevych, I.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)
- Published
- 2026
- Pages
- 12390-12418
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7166826830
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- TUbilio (Technical University of Darmstadt) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Technischen Universität Darmstadt (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, scientific peer review
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review