CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem

Wei, Qiyao, Holt, Samuel, Yang, Jing, Wulfmeier, Markus, van der Schaar, Mihaela·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2506.08134arXiv 2506.08134
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale. Exponential growth in manuscript submissions to premier ML venues such as NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR is outpacing the finite capacity of qualified reviewers, leading to concerns about review quality, consistency, and reviewer fatigue. This position paper argues that AI-assisted peer review must become an urgent research and infrastructure priority. We advocate for a comprehensive AI-augmented ecosystem, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) not as replacements for human judgment, but as sophisticated collaborators for authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs). We propose specific roles for AI in enhancing factual verification, guiding reviewer performance, assisting authors in quality improvement, and supporting ACs in decision-making. Crucially, we contend that the development of such systems hinges on access to more granular, structured, and ethically-sourced peer review process data. We outline a research agenda, including illustrative experiments, to develop and validate these AI assistants, and discuss significant technical and ethical challenges. We call upon the ML community to proactively build this AI-assisted future, ensuring the continued integrity and scalability of scientific validation, while maintaining high standards of peer review.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.08134

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Inconsistent review ratings. ICLR data (2019-2024) show high inter-reviewer variance ( σ ≈ 1-1.5) that rises with submissions.
Figure 1 Inconsistent review ratings. ICLR data (2019-2024) show high inter-reviewer variance ( σ ≈ 1-1.5) that rises with submissions.CC-BY · From the PDF
Figure 2 Reviewer-author dialogue remains shallow. Across ICLR 2019-25, a majority of reviewers stay silent (red bars); those who respond average <1 reply and <150 words (blue & purple). Authors are increasingly active (green & orange), yet reviewer engagement lags-evidence that the rebuttal stage exerts limited influence.
Figure 2 Reviewer-author dialogue remains shallow. Across ICLR 2019-25, a majority of reviewers stay silent (red bars); those who respond average <1 reply and <150 words (blue & purple). Authors are increasingly active (green & orange), yet reviewer engagement lags-evidence that the rebuttal stage exerts limited influence.CC-BY · From the PDF
Program Chairs Figure 3. The envisioned AI-augmented peer review ecosystem. This diagram illustrates the cyclical nature of peer review, with authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs) as key human stakeholders. At the core, a Large Language Model (LLM) acts as a collaborative assistant, providing feedback and analytical support at multiple stages (e.g., to authors during paper preparation, to reviewers assessing submissions, and to ACs in their decision-making process), always with humans guiding the process.
Program Chairs Figure 3. The envisioned AI-augmented peer review ecosystem. This diagram illustrates the cyclical nature of peer review, with authors, reviewers, and Area Chairs (ACs) as key human stakeholders. At the core, a Large Language Model (LLM) acts as a collaborative assistant, providing feedback and analytical support at multiple stages (e.g., to authors during paper preparation, to reviewers assessing submissions, and to ACs in their decision-making process), always with humans guiding the process.CC-BY · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. S. Agarwal, G. Sahu, A. Puri, I. H. Laradji, K. D. Dvijotham, J. Stanley, L. Charlin, and C. Pal. Litllm: A toolkit for sci- entific literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01788, 2024. · arXiv
  2. S. Agarwal, G. Sahu, A. Puri, I. H. Laradji, K. D. Dvijotham, J. Stanley, L. Charlin, and C. Pal. Litllms, llms for literature review: Are we there yet? Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2025.
  3. I. Beltagy, K. Lo, and A. Cohan. SciBERT: A pretrained lan- guage model for scientific text. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3615-3620. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  4. A. Beygelzimer, Y. N. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. W. Vaughan. Has the machine learning review process become more ar- bitrary as the field has grown? the neurips 2021 consistency experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.03262, 2023. · arXiv
  5. W. Chen, J. Zhang, H. Zhu, B. Xu, Z. Hao, K. Zhang, J. Ye, and R. Cai. Causal-aware large language models: Enhanc- ing decision-making through learning, adapting and acting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.24710, 2025. · arXiv
  6. A. Cohan, S. Feldman, I. Beltagy, D. Downey, and D. Weld. Specter: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2020.
  7. C. Cortes and N. D. Lawrence. Inconsistency in conference peer review: Revisiting the 2014 neurips experiment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.09774, 2021. · arXiv
  8. W. Dai, J. Lin, H. Jin, T. Li, Y.-S. Tsai, D. Gašević, and G. Chen. Can large language models provide feedback to students? a case study on chatgpt. In 2023 IEEE in- ternational conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT), pages 323-325. IEEE, 2023.
  9. M. D'Arcy, T. Hope, L. Birnbaum, and D. Downey. Marg: Multi-agent review generation for scientific papers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04259, 2024. · arXiv
  10. S. Dathathri, A. See, S. Ghaisas, P.-S. Huang, R. McAdam, J. Welbl, V. Bachani, A. Kaskasoli, R. Stanforth, T. Mate- jovicova, et al. Scalable watermarking for identifying large language model outputs. Nature, 634(8035):818-823, 2024.
  11. M. Du, Y. Chen, Z. Wang, L. Nie, and D. Zhang. Llm4ed: Large language models for automatic equation discov- ery. CoRR, abs/2405.07761, 2024. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.07761. · DOI
  12. N. Dycke and I. Gurevych. Automatic reviewers fail to detect faulty reasoning in research papers: A new counterfactual evaluation framework. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 14:465-488, 2026.
  13. D. Edge, H. Trinh, N. Cheng, J. Bradley, A. Chao, A. Mody, S. Truitt, D. Metropolitansky, R. O. Ness, and J. Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query- focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024. · arXiv
  14. B. Emi and M. Spero. Technical report on the checkfor. ai ai-generated text classifier. arXiv preprint, 2024.
  15. T. Foltỳnek, N. Meuschke, and B. Gipp. Academic plagiarism detection: a systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 52(6):1-42, 2019.
  16. A. Goldberg, I. Stelmakh, K. Cho, A. Oh, A. Agarwal, D. Bel- grave, and N. B. Shah. Peer reviews of peer reviews: A randomized controlled trial and other experiments. PloS one, 20(4):e0320444, 2025.
  17. S. Holt, T. Liu, and M. van der Schaar. Automatically learning hybrid digital twins of dynamical systems. In The Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 2024a. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=SOsiObSdU2.
  18. S. Holt, Z. Qian, T. Liu, J. Weatherall, and M. van der Schaar. Data-driven discovery of dynamical systems in pharmacology using large language models. In The Thirty- eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 2024b. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=KIrZmlTA92.
  19. S. Holt, M. R. Luyten, A. Berthon, and M. van der Schaar. G-sim: Generative simulations with large language models and gradient-free calibration. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=PvkO6rIixC. ICLR Blog. ICLR 2025 Reviewer Assistant Exper- iment. https://blog.iclr.cc/2024/10/09/ iclr2025-assisting-reviewers/, 2024. Ac- cessed: 2024-11-15.
  20. ICLR Blog. Leveraging LLM feedback to enhance review quality, 2025. Accessed: 2025-04-15.
  21. ICML 2026. ICML 2026 Policy for LLM use in review- ing. https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/ LLM-Policy/, 2026. Accessed 22 May 2026.
  22. K. Kacprzyk, S. Holt, J. Berrevoets, Z. Qian, and M. van der Schaar. ODE discovery for longitudinal heteroge- neous treatment effects inference. In The Twelfth In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=pxI5IPeWgW.
  23. J. Kim, Y. Lee, and S. Lee. Position: The ai conference peer review crisis demands author feedback and reviewer rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.04966, 2025. · arXiv
  24. P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, V. Karpukhin, N. Goyal, H. Küttler, M. Lewis, W.-t. Yih, T. Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge- intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information pro- cessing systems, 33:9459-9474, 2020.
  25. H. Li, Y. Su, D. Cai, Y. Wang, and L. Liu. A survey on retrieval-augmented text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.01110, 2022. · arXiv
  26. R. Liu and N. B. Shah. Reviewergpt? an exploratory study on using large language models for paper reviewing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00622, 2023. · arXiv
  27. C. Lu, C. Lu, R. T. Lange, J. Foerster, J. Clune, and D. Ha. The ai scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended sci- entific discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.06292, 2024. · arXiv
  28. D. Mimno and A. McCallum. Expertise modeling for match- ing papers with reviewers. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 500-509, 2007.
  29. L. Mindner, T. Schlippe, and K. Schaaff. Classification of human-and ai-generated texts: Investigating features for chatgpt. In International conference on artificial intelli- gence in education technology, pages 152-170. Springer, 2023.
  30. NeurIPS. NeurIPS 2024 Fact Sheet. https: //media.neurips.cc/Conferences/ NeurIPS2024/NeurIPS2024-Fact_Sheet.pdf, 2024. Accessed: June 26, 2025.
  31. NeurIPS. NeurIPS Paper Checklist Guidelines. https://neurips.cc/public/guides/ PaperChecklist/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05- 21.
  32. Paper Copilot. ICML 2023 Submission Statistics. https://papercopilot.com/statistics/ icml-statistics/icml-2023-statistics/, 2023. Accessed 23 May 2025. Paper Copilot. ICML 2024 Submission Statistics. https://papercopilot.com/statistics/ icml-statistics/, 2024. Accessed 23 May 2025.
  33. T. Pouplin, H. Sun, S. Holt, and M. Van der Schaar. Retrieval- augmented thought process as sequential decision making. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv-2402, 2024. Radiology: Artificial Intelligence. How Radiology: Artificial Intelligence Handles Your Paper. https://pubs. rsna.org/page/ai/author-instructions/ your-paper#:~:text=Radiology%3A% 20Artificial%20Intelligence%20accepts% 20manuscripts,not%20be%20submitted% 20to%20another/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-21.
  34. A. Saad, N. Jenko, S. Ariyaratne, N. Birch, K. P. Iyengar, A. M. Davies, R. Vaishya, and R. Botchu. Exploring the potential of chatgpt in the peer review process: an obser- vational study. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews, 18(2):102946, 2024.
  35. K. Siler, K. Lee, and L. Bero. Measuring the effectiveness of scientific gatekeeping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(2):360-365, 2015.
  36. X. Song, H. Sun, X. Wang, and J. Yan. A survey of auto- matic generation of source code comments: Algorithms and techniques. IEEE access, 7:111411-111428, 2019.
  37. G. Starace, O. Jaffe, D. Sherburn, J. Aung, J. S. Chan, L. Maksin, R. Dias, E. Mays, B. Kinsella, W. Thomp- son, et al. Paperbench: Evaluating ai's ability to replicate ai research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.01848, 2025. · arXiv
  38. B. M. Stern and E. K. O'Shea. A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences. PLoS biology, 17 (2):e3000116, 2019.
  39. N. Thakkar, M. Yuksekgonul, J. Silberg, A. Garg, N. Peng, F. Sha, R. Yu, C. Vondrick, and J. Zou. Can llm feedback enhance review quality? a randomized study of 20k reviews at iclr 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09737, 2025. · arXiv
  40. R. Van Dinter, B. Tekinerdogan, and C. Catal. Automation of systematic literature reviews: A systematic literature review. Information and software technology, 136:106589, 2021.
  41. R. Walker and P. Rocha da Silva. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9:169, 2015.
  42. L. Waltman, W. Kaltenbrunner, S. Pinfield, and H. B. Woods. How to improve scientific peer review: Four schools of thought. Learned Publishing, 36(3):334-347, 2023.
  43. G. Wan, Y. Lu, Y. Wu, M. Hu, and S. Li. Large language models for causal discovery: Current landscape and future directions, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2402.11068.
  44. R. Ye, X. Pang, J. Chai, J. Chen, Z. Yin, Z. Xiang, X. Dong, J. Shao, and S. Chen. Are we there yet? revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01708, 2024. · arXiv
  45. J. Yu, Z. Ding, J. Tan, K. Luo, Z. Weng, C. Gong, L. Zeng, R. Cui, C. Han, Q. Sun, et al. Automated peer reviewing in paper sea: Standardization, evaluation, and analysis. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 10164-10184, 2024a.
  46. S. Yu, M. Luo, A. Madasu, V. Lal, and P. Howard. Is your paper being reviewed by an llm? investigating ai text de- tectability in peer review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03019, 2024b. · arXiv
  47. Y. Zhang, X. Chen, B. Jin, S. Wang, S. Ji, W. Wang, and J. Han. A comprehensive survey of scientific large lan- guage models and their applications in scientific discov- ery. In EMNLP, pages 8783-8817, 2024. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2024.emnlp-main.498.
  48. M. Zhao, F. Li, F. Cai, H. Chen, and Z. Li. Can we trust llms to help us? an examination of the potential use of gpt-4 in generating quality literature reviews. Nankai Business Review International, 16(1):128-142, 2025.
  49. Y. Zhou, B. He, and L. Sun. Humanizing machine-generated content: evading ai-text detection through adversarial at- tack. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01907, 2024. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 1

Metadata

Authors
Wei, Q., Holt, S., Yang, J., Wulfmeier, M., & van der Schaar, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2506.08134
arXiv
2506.08134
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2506.08134
The paper
Wei, Q., Holt, S., Yang, J., Wulfmeier, M., & van der Schaar, M. (2025). Position: The ML Community Must Build an AI-Augmented Peer-Review Ecosystem. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2506.08134