Cited by 1Topic ModelingAcademic Writing and PublishingNatural Language Processing Techniques

Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review

Open access
Ruan, Qian, Gurevych, Iryna·2026·Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.565

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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