Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Recent advancements in large language models have sparked interest in utilizing them to aid the peer review process of scientific publication amid the peer review crisis. However, having AI models generate full reviews in the same way as human reviewers risks exacerbating the irresponsible use of LLM-generated reviews and instigating intentional manipulation. As an alternative, we propose adopting LLMs as manuscript quality checkers. We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges to tackle the difficulty of recruiting domain experts for manual evaluation. Utilizing papers withdrawn from arXiv, we validated our proposed methods with several leading reasoning LLMs available in May-June 2025 and assessed their performance and API costs for identifying critical errors and unsoundness problems in scientific papers. o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost. This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications. Our dataset, code, and model outputs are publicly available.
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?
Zhang and Abernethy (2025) study the identification of critical errors using LLMs based on WithdrarXiv, a set of retracted arXiv papers and retraction notes.
“Zhang and Abernethy (2025) study the identification of critical errors using LLMs. However, their work is based on WithdrarXiv (Rao et al., 2024), a set of retracted arXiv papers and retraction notes.”
From FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang and Abernethy (2025)
Retraction notes often provide ambiguous reasons and may not specify the exact error, undermining evaluation reliability.
“They acknowledge that the retraction notes often provide ambiguous reasons and may not specify the exact error, undermining evaluation reliability.”
From FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang and Abernethy (2025)
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 29
- Howard Bauchner and Frederick P. Rivara. Use of artificial intelligence and the future of peer review. Health Affairs Scholar, 2(5), 2024. doi: 10.1093/haschl/qxae058. · DOI
- Mike D'Arcy, Tom Hope, Larry Birnbaum, and Doug Downey. MARG: Multi-agent review generation for scientific papers, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04259. · arXiv
- Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao, Zhongfen Deng, Shuaiqi Liu, Renze Lou, Henry Peng Zou, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Nan Zhang, Mukund Srinath, Haoran Ranran Zhang, Vipul Gupta, Yinghui Li, Tao Li, Fei Wang, Qin Liu, Tianlin Liu, Pengzhi Gao, Congying Xia, Chen Xing, Cheng Jiayang, Zhaowei Wang, Ying Su, Raj Sanjay Shah, Ruohao Guo, Jing Gu, Hao- ran Li, Kangda Wei, Zihao Wang, Lu Cheng, Surangika Ranathunga, Meng Fang, Jie Fu, Fei Liu, Ruihong Huang, Eduardo Blanco, Yixin Cao, Rui Zhang, Philip S. Yu, and Wenpeng Yin. LLMs assist NLP researchers: Critique paper (meta-)reviewing. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mo- hit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5081-5099, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.292. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.292/. · DOI · Paper page
- Michael Duan, Anshuman Suri, Niloofar Mireshghallah, Sewon Min, Weijia Shi, Luke Zettlemoyer, Yulia Tsvetkov, Yejin Choi, David Evans, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Do membership inference attacks work on large language models? In Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07841. · arXiv
- Yujuan Fu, Ozlem Uzuner, Meliha Yetisgen, and Fei Xia. Does data contamination detection work (well) for LLMs? a survey and evaluation on detection assumptions. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang, editors, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pages 5235-5256, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 2025. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. ISBN 979-8-89176-195-7. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-naacl. 291/.
- Zhaolin Gao, Kianté Brantley, and Thorsten Joachims. Reviewer2: Optimizing review generation through prompt generation, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10886. · arXiv
- Jaeho Kim, Yunseok Lee, and Seulki Lee. Position: The AI conference peer review crisis demands author feedback and reviewer rewards. In Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Vancouver, Canada, 2025. PMLR. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505. 04966.
- 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?, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2405.06563.
- Diana Kwon. Is it ok for AI to write science papers? Nature survey shows researchers are split. Nature, 641, 2025. doi: 10.1038/d41586-025-01463-8. · DOI · Paper page
- Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, Daniel A. McFarland, and James Zou. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysis. NEJM AI, 1(8), 2024. doi: 10.1056/AIoa2400196. · DOI · Paper page
- Jialiang Lin, Jiaxin Song, Zhangping Zhou, Yidong Chen, and Xiaodong Shi. Automated scholarly paper review: Concepts, technologies, and challenges. Information Fusion, 98(101830), 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2023.101830. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhicheng Lin. Hidden prompts in manuscripts exploit AI-assisted peer review, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.06185.
- Ryan Liu and Nihar B. Shah. ReviewerGPT? an exploratory study on using large language models for paper reviewing, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.00622. · arXiv
- Miryam Naddaf. AI is transforming peer review -and many scientists are worried. Nature, 639, 2025. doi: 10.1038/d41586-025-00894-7. · DOI · Paper page
- Michèle B. Nuijten and Joshua R. Polanin. "statcheck": automatically detect statistical reporting inconsistencies to increase reproducibility of meta-analyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(5), 2020. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1408. · DOI · Paper page
- Delip Rao, Jonathan Young, Thomas Dietterich, and Chris Callison-Burch. WithdrarXiv: A large- scale dataset for retraction study, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03775. · arXiv
- Maria Janina Sarol, Shufan Ming, Shruthan Radhakrishna, Jodi Schneider, and Halil Kilicoglu. Assessing citation integrity in biomedical publications: corpus annotation and NLP models. Bioinformatics, 40(7), 2024. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae420. · DOI · Paper page
- Hyungyu Shin, Jingyu Tang, Yoonjoo Lee, Nayoung Kim, Hyunseung Lim, Ji Yong Cho, Hwajung Hong, Moontae Lee, and Juho Kim. Automatically evaluating the paper reviewing capability of large language models, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17086. · arXiv
- Guijin Son, Jiwoo Hong, Honglu Fan, Heejeong Nam, Hyunwoo Ko, Seungwon Lim, Jinyeop Song, Jinha Choi, Gonçalo Paulo, Youngjae Yu, and Stella Biderman. When AI co-scientists fail: SPOT-a benchmark for automated verification of scientific research, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.11855.
- Pawin Taechoyotin, Guanchao Wang, Tong Zeng, Bradley Sides, and Daniel Acuna. MAMORX: Multi-agent multi-modal scientific review generation with external knowledge. In Neurips 2024 Workshop Foundation Models for Science: Progress, Opportunities, and Challenges, Vancouver, Canada, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=frvkE8rCfX.
- Cheng Tan, Dongxin Lyu, Siyuan Li, Zhangyang Gao, Jingxuan Wei, Siqi Ma, Zicheng Liu, and Stan Z. Li. Peer review as a multi-turn and long-context dialogue with role-based interactions, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.05688. · arXiv
- Keith Tyser, Ben Segev, Gaston Longhitano, Xin-Yu Zhang, Zachary Meeks, Jason Lee, Uday Garg, Nicholas Belsten, Avi Shporer, Madeleine Udell, Dov Te'eni, and Iddo Drori. AI-driven review systems: Evaluating LLMs in scalable and bias-aware academic reviews, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10365. · arXiv
- Rui Ye, Xianghe Pang, Jingyi Chai, Jiaao Chen, Zhenfei Yin, Zhen Xiang, Xiaowen Dong, Jing Shao, and Siheng Chen. Are we there yet? revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01708. · arXiv
- Jianxiang Yu, Zichen Ding, Jiaqi Tan, Kangyang Luo, Zhenmin Weng, Chenghua Gong, Long Zeng, RenJing Cui, Chengcheng Han, Qiushi Sun, Zhiyong Wu, Yunshi Lan, and Xiang Li. Automated peer reviewing in paper SEA: Standardization, evaluation, and analysis. In Yaser Al-Onaizan, Mohit Bansal, and Yun-Nung Chen, editors, Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 10164-10184, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.595. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.findings-emnlp.595/. · DOI
- Sihang Zeng, Kai Tian, Kaiyan Zhang, Yuru wang, Junqi Gao, Runze Liu, Sa Yang, Jingxuan Li, Xinwei Long, Jiaheng Ma, Biqing Qi, and Bowen Zhou. ReviewRL: Towards automated scientific review with RL, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.10308. · arXiv
- Tianmai M. Zhang and Neil F. Abernethy. Detecting reference errors in scientific literature with large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06101. · arXiv
- Ruiyang Zhou, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Is LLM a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of LLM on automatic paper reviewing tasks. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Min-Yen Kan, Veronique Hoste, Alessandro Lenci, Sakriani Sakti, and Nianwen Xue, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 9340-9351, Torino, Italia, May 2024. ELRA and ICCL. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.816/.
- Minjun Zhu, Yixuan Weng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. Deepreview: Improving llm-based paper review with human-like deep thinking process, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 08569.
- Zhenzhen Zhuang, Jiandong Chen, Hongfeng Xu, Yuwen Jiang, and Jialiang Lin. Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey. Information Fusion, 124(103332), 2025. doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103332. · DOI · Paper page
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
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
FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers
Xi, S., Rao, V., Payan, J., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21843
“In addition, Zhang and Abernethy (2025) acknowledge a limitation of using this dataset, in that retraction notes often do not actually specify the exact error.”
CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI Reviewers
Deng, H., Ke, X., Li, Y., Hu, R., Huang, D., Wong, D. F., Wang, Y., Liu, X., & Zhang, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07905
- Authors
- Zhang, T. M., & Abernethy, N. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- ORCID
- Abernethy, Neil F.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2505.23824
- OpenAlex
- W6929366860
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- University of Washington
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Keywords
- peer review, large language models, reasoning LLMs, arXiv papers, ozone
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
