Usefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment
Open accessAbstract
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. We conduct an experiment at the 2024 Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference, where 234 papers were voluntarily submitted to an "LLM-based Checklist Assistant." This assistant validates whether papers adhere to the author checklist used by NeurIPS, which includes questions to ensure compliance with research and manuscript preparation standards. Evaluation of the assistant by NeurIPS paper authors suggests that the LLM-based assistant was generally helpful in verifying checklist completion. In post-usage surveys, over 70% of authors found the assistant useful, and 70% indicate that they would revise their papers or checklist responses based on its feedback. While causal attribution to the assistant is not definitive, qualitative evidence suggests that the LLM contributed to improving some submissions. Survey responses and analysis of re-submissions indicate that authors made substantive revisions to their submissions in response to specific feedback from the LLM. The experiment also highlights common issues with LLMs: inaccuracy (20/52) and excessive strictness (14/52) were the most frequent issues flagged by authors. We also conduct experiments to understand potential gaming of the system, which reveal that the assistant could be manipulated to enhance scores through fabricated justifications, highlighting potential vulnerabilities of automated review 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?
NeurIPS 2024 piloted an opt-in LLM-based author checklist assistant on a voluntary subset of submissions.
“NeurIPS 2024 piloted an opt-in LLM-based author checklist assistant on a voluntary subset of submissions”
From On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists (2026) · cites this paper as Goldberg et al., 2024
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.
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Code Of Ethics: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics https://neurips.cc/public/EthicsGuidelines?
- Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld. Specter: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2270-2282, 2020.
- L. Charlin and R. S. Zemel. The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper- reviewer assignment system. In ICML Workshop on Peer Reviewing and Publishing Models, 2013.
- Mike D'Arcy, Tom Hope, Larry Birnbaum, and Doug Downey. MARG: multi-agent review generation for scientific papers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04259, 2024. · arXiv
- Mike D'Arcy, Alexis Ross, Erin Bransom, Bailey Kuehl, Jonathan Bragg, Tom Hope, and Doug Downey. Aries: A corpus of scientific paper edits made in response to peer reviews. ArXiv, abs/2306.12587, 2023. · arXiv
- Thorsten Eisenhofer, Erwin Quiring, Jonas Möller, Doreen Riepel, Thorsten Holz, and Kon- rad Rieck. No more reviewer# 2: Subverting automatic {Paper-Reviewer} assignment using adversarial learning. In 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23), pages 5109-5126, 2023.
- Alexander Goldberg, Ivan Stelmakh, Kyunghyun Cho, Alice Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Nihar B Shah. Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09497, 2023. · arXiv
- Jhih-Yi (Janet) Hsieh, Aditi Raghunathan, and Nihar Shah. Vulnerability of text-matching in ML/AI conference reviewer assignments to collusion rings. arXiv, 2024.
- Steven Jecmen, Hanrui Zhang, Ryan Liu, Nihar B. Shah, Vincent Conitzer, and Fei Fang. Mitigating manipulation in peer review via randomized reviewer assignments. In NeurIPS, 2020.
- Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen, Nils Dycke, Alexander Goldberg, Tom Hope, Dirk Hovy, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Anne Lauscher, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Sheng Lu, Mausam, Margot Mieskes, Aurélie Névéol, Danish Pruthi, Lizhen Qu, Roy Schwartz, Noah A. Smith, Thamar Solorio, Jingyan Wang, Xiaodan Zhu, Anna Rogers, Nihar B. Shah, and Iryna Gurevych. What can natural language processing do for peer review? arXiv:2405.06563, 2024. · arXiv
- Michael L Littman. Collusion rings threaten the integrity of computer science research. Com- munications of the ACM, 64(6):43-44, 2021.
- Weixin Liang, Zachary Izzo, Yaohui Zhang, Haley Lepp, Hancheng Cao, Xuandong Zhao, Lingjiao Chen, Haotian Ye, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Daniel A. McFarland, and James Y. Zou. Monitoring ai-modified content at scale: A case study on the impact of ChatGPT on AI conference peer reviews, 2024.
- Giuseppe Russo Latona, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tim R. Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, and Robert West. The AI review lottery: Widespread AI-assisted peer reviews boost paper scores and acceptance rates, 2024.
- Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Smith, Yian Yin, et al. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01783, 2023. · arXiv
- Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, Haley Lepp, Wenlong Ji, Xuandong Zhao, Hancheng Cao, Sheng Liu, Siyu He, Zhi Huang, et al. Mapping the increasing use of LLMs in scientific papers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01268, 2024. · arXiv
- David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, and t PRISMA Group*. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. Annals of internal medicine, 151(4):264-269, 2009.
- David Moher, Kenneth F Schulz, and Douglas G Altman. The consort statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. The lancet, 357(9263):1191-1194, 2001.
- Ian Markwood, Dakun Shen, Yao Liu, and Zhuo Lu. PDF mirage: Content masking attack against Information-Based online services. In 26th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 17), pages 833-847, Vancouver, BC, August 2017. USENIX Association.
- Justin Payan and Yair Zick. I will have order! optimizing orders for fair reviewer assignment. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 1711-1713, 2022.
- Charvi Rastogi, Xiangchen Song, Zhijing Jin, Ivan Stelmakh, Hal Daumé III, Kun Zhang, and Nihar B Shah. A randomized controlled trial on anonymizing reviewers to each other in peer review discussions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.01015, 2024. · arXiv
- Nihar B Shah. An overview of challenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/ ~nihars/preprints/SurveyPeerReview.pdf (Abridged version published in the Communications of the ACM), June 2022.
- Ivan Stelmakh, Nihar Shah, and Aarti Singh. PeerReview4All: Fair and accurate reviewer assignment in peer review. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2021.
- Dat Tran and Chetan Jaiswal. PDFPhantom: Exploiting pdf attacks against academic con- ferences' paper submission process with counterattack. In 2019 IEEE 10th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference (UEMCON), pages 0736-0743, 2019.
- Keith Tyser, Jason Lee, Avi Shporer, Madeleine Udell, Dov Te'eni, and Iddo Drori. Openre- viewer: Mitigating challenges in LLM reviewing. submitted to ICLR 2024 on OpenReview.net, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Detecting LLM-generated peer reviews
Rao, V. S., Kumar, A., Lakkaraju, H., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331871 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“A similar perspective was taken in [GUK + 24b], where the adversarial attack modified the paper’s content (specifically, the checklist, which was their focus) rather than using prompt injection.”
Self-citationA large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2026) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-026-01188-x · Cited by 11 · see citing works
General-Purpose Models for the Chemical Sciences: LLMs and Beyond
Alampara, N., Aneesh, A., Ríos-García, M., Mirza, A., Schilling-Wilhelmi, M., Aghajani, A. A., Sun, M., Prastalo, G., & Jablonka, K. M. (2026) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c00583 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Can LLM feedback enhance review quality? A randomized study of 20K reviews at ICLR 2025
Thakkar, N., Yuksekgonul, M., Silberg, J., Garg, A., Peng, N., Sha, F., Yu, R., Vondrick, C., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.09737 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
“Inspired by [27, 28], we generated five clusters on 1000 randomly sampled feedback items using an LLM; we repeated this process twice to ensure robustness.”
Kim, S., Yoon, D., Gashteovski, K., Suk, J., Baek, J., Aggarwal, P., Wu, I., Zaverkin, V., Petkoski, S., Schrider, D. R., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.20668 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyond
Dycke, N., Zečević, M., Kuznetsov, I., Suess, B., Kersting, K., & Gurevych, I. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1107 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
Biswas, J., Schoepp, S., Vasan, G., Opipari, A., Zhang, A., Hu, Z., Joseph, S., Lease, M., Li, J. J., Stone, P., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13940 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Vinatier, C., Freyermuth, G., Millour, M., Lyan, G. L. B., Buet, S., Lunel, P., Robillard, N., Naudet, F., & Acher, M. (2026) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.24615.1
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
Baumann, J., Pei, J., Koyejo, S., & Hovy, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.03202
“NeurIPS 2024 tested an LLM checklist assistant, which was found to be helpful but game-able (Goldberg et al., 2024).”
- Authors
- Goldberg, A., Ullah, I., Khuong, T. G. H., Rachmat, B. K., Xu, Z., Guyon, I., & Shah, N. B.
- Affiliations
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- ChaLearn (US)
- Université Paris-Saclay (FR)
- University of Chicago (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.03417
- OpenAlex
- W4404395372
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Keywords
- large language models, author checklist, scientific peer review, conference paper submission, NeurIPS, author feedback, LLM accuracy
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
