Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
Open accessAbstract
Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.
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?
Presentation-only revisions to scientific manuscripts can increase AI-review scores without changing the reported evidence.
“More directly, recent studies show that presentation-only revisions to scientific manuscripts can increase AI-review scores without changing the reported evidence (Kaneko, 2026; Li et al., 2026b; Baumann et al., 2026; Yang et al., 2026b).”
From How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Baumann et al., 2026
Baumann et al. (2026) uses paper laundering to describe automated rewriting intended to raise AI-review scores without new experiments.
“At the full-paper level, Baumann et al. (2026) uses paper laundering to describe automated rewriting intended to raise AI-review scores without new experiments.”
From How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review (2026) · cites this paper as Baumann et al., 2026
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
Cambridge, N. (1977) · doi:10.1177/003591577707000909 · Cited by 5,674
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Without proper understanding, we risk repeating the mistakes of AI-based decision system automation that were later found to be harmful and discriminatory (Barocas & Selbst, 2016; Miller, 2015; Angwin et al., 2016; Pagan et al., 2023; Baumann et al., 2024).”
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22784 · Cited by 1,000 · cited 1× · see citing works
“But no ground truth for paper quality exists (Lee et al., 2013).”
Lee, H.-P. (., Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713778 · Cited by 490 · see citing works
Gender bias in scholarly peer review
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.21718 · Cited by 380 · cited 1× · see citing works
“5 Alternative views 5.1 “AI reviewers are more consistent and less biased than humans” Human reviewers exhibit well-documented biases (Helmer et al., 2017), and the NeurIPS consistency experiments showed that roughly half of accepted papers would have received different decisions under different…”
InfluentialA billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review
Aczel, B., Szaszi, B., & Holcombe, A. O. (2021) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2 · Cited by 306 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Submission volumes at major AI conferences have grown significantly in recent years (Yang et al., 2026), making it increasingly difficult to find a large enough pool of qualified reviewers (Aczel et al., 2021; Shah, 2022).”
Checco, A., Bracciale, L., Loreti, P., Pinfield, S., & Bianchi, G. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00703-8 · Cited by 286 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Researchers and practitioners have explored various ways to use AI to review papers (Yuan et al., 2022; Checco et al., 2021), with recent work showing promising performance (Liang et al., 2024b; Idahl & Ahmadi, 2025).”
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Cao, H., Wang, B., Ding, D., Yang, X., Vodrahalli, K., He, S., Smith, D., Yin, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.01783 · Cited by 243 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Researchers and practitioners have explored various ways to use AI to review papers (Yuan et al., 2022; Checco et al., 2021), with recent work showing promising performance (Liang et al., 2024b; Idahl & Ahmadi, 2025).”
Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?Preprint
Yuan, W., Liu, P.-F., & Neubig, G. (2021) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.00176 · Cited by 145 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Researchers and practitioners have explored various ways to use AI to review papers (Yuan et al., 2022; Checco et al., 2021), with recent work showing promising performance (Liang et al., 2024b; Idahl & Ahmadi, 2025).”
Perceptions of Ethical Problems with Scientific Journal Peer Review: An Exploratory Study
Resnik, D., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4 · Cited by 119 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The broader question—which must address difficult questions of agency (Sharma et al., 2024) and broader ethical implications (Resnik et al., 2008)—is: what would constitute sufficient conditions?”
Great Models Think Alike and this Undermines AI Oversight
Goel, S., Strüber, J., Auzina, I., Chandra, K. K., Kumaraguru, P., Kiela, D., Prabhu, A., Bethge, M., & Geiping, J. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.04313 · Cited by 78 · cited 1×
“It is well-documented that instruction-tuned LLMs produce homogeneous outputs (Zhang et al., 2025; West & Potts, 2025; Jiang et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2026; Goel et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2025a).”
Liang, W., Izzo, Z., Zhang, Y., Lepp, H., Cao, H., Zhao, X., Chen, L., Ye, H., Liu, S., Huang, Z., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.07183 · Cited by 73 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, it faces many challenges (Shah, 2022; Lin et al., 2025a): Submission volumes grow faster than reviewer pools can expand, and LLM-written reviews are steadily increasing (Liang et al., 2024a; Russo et al., 2025; Emi, 2025).”
SimBench: Benchmarking the Ability of Large Language Models to Simulate Human Behaviors
Hu, T., Baumann, J., Lupo, L., Collier, N., Hovy, D., & Röttger, P. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17516 · Cited by 72 · cited 1×
“It is well-documented that instruction-tuned LLMs produce homogeneous outputs (Zhang et al., 2025; West & Potts, 2025; Jiang et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2026; Goel et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2025a).”
Self-citationLarge Language Model Hacking: Quantifying the Hidden Risks of Using LLMs for Text Annotation
Baumann, J., Röttger, P., Urman, A., Wendsjö, A., del Arco, F. M. P., Gruber, J., & Hovy, D. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08825 · Cited by 68 · cited 1×
“Routine LLM configuration choices can themselves fabricate or suppress statistical effects in evaluation pipelines (Baumann et al., 2025), so reported AI reviewer performance can shift with undocumented setup details.”
Self-citationChallenges, experiments, and computational solutions in peer review
Shah, N. B. (2022) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3528086 · Cited by 66 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Submission volumes at major AI conferences have grown significantly in recent years (Yang et al., 2026), making it increasingly difficult to find a large enough pool of qualified reviewers (Aczel et al., 2021; Shah, 2022).”
ChatGPT and the future of journal reviews: A feasibility study
Biswas, S., Dobaria, D., & Cohen, H. L. (2023) · The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine · doi:10.59249/skdh9286 · Cited by 65 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These challenges have created urgent demand for solutions, making the automation of peer review processes an increasingly attractive prospect (Biswas et al., 2023; Kuznetsov et al., 2024).”
SWE-chat: Coding Agent Interactions From Real Users in the Wild
Baumann, J., Padmakumar, V., Li, X., Yang, J., Yang, D., & Koyejo, O. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.20779 · Cited by 64 · cited 2×
“Submission volumes at major AI conferences have grown significantly in recent years (Yang et al., 2026), making it increasingly difficult to find a large enough pool of qualified reviewers (Aczel et al., 2021; Shah, 2022).”
Self-citation(2019) · Automation, Control, and Information Technology · doi:10.1109/acitt.2019.8780015 · Cited by 64
A Classification of Feedback Loops and Their Relation to Biases in Automated Decision-Making Systems
Pagan, N., Baumann, J., Elokda, E., Pasquale, G. D., Bolognani, S., & Hannák, A. (2023) · Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization · doi:10.1145/3617694.3623227 · Cited by 60 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Without proper understanding, we risk repeating the mistakes of AI-based decision system automation that were later found to be harmful and discriminatory (Barocas & Selbst, 2016; Miller, 2015; Angwin et al., 2016; Pagan et al., 2023; Baumann et al., 2024).”
Self-citationYou’d Better Stop! Understanding Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models under Covariate Shift
Chiang, C.-W., & Yin, M. (2021) · 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021 · doi:10.1145/3447535.3462487 · Cited by 53 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Overreliance is a well-documented risk in human-AI collaboration (Buc¸inca et al., 2021; Chiang & Yin, 2021).”
Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards
Kim, J., Lee, Y., & Lee, S. (2025) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.04966 · Cited by 50 · cited 1×
“Investing in reviewer incentives can improve the quality of human input (Kim et al., 2025b).”
Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer ReviewPreprint
Ye, R., Pang, X., Chai, J., Chen, J., Yin, Z., Xiang, Z., Dong, X., Shao, J. B., & Chen, S. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.01708 · Cited by 46 · cited 2× · see citing works
“More recently, LLM-based reviewers have proven vulnerable to prompt injection attacks, where hidden instructions embedded in papers manipulate AI reviewers (Ye et al., 2024).”
Scientists hide messages in papers to game AI peer review
Gibney, E. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-025-02172-y · Cited by 42 · cited 1×
“Scientists have exploited this by inserting invisible prompts that elicit positive reviews (Gibney, 2025b).”
Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey
Zhuang, Z., Chen, J., Xu, H., Jiang, Y., & Lin, J. (2025) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2025.103332 · Cited by 34 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Otherwise, well-known issues of LLM hallucination and bias could compromise the fairness of AI-enhanced peer review (Schintler et al., 2023; Liu & Shah, 2023; Akella et al., 2025; Bonifazi et al., 2025; Zhuang et al., 2025).”
How LLMs Distort Our Written LanguagePreprint
Abdulhai, M., White, I., Wan, Y., Qureshi, I., Leibo, J., Kleiman-Weiner, M., & Jaques, N. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.18161 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Collusion rings threaten the integrity of computer science research
Littman, M. L. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3429776 · Cited by 29 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To verify that score increases reflect score gaming rather than genuine quality improvements, we analyzed word-level changes across all 60 laundered papers (Table 5 in Appendix E for details).”
ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing
Liu, R., & Shah, N. B. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.00622 · Cited by 23 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Otherwise, well-known issues of LLM hallucination and bias could compromise the fairness of AI-enhanced peer review (Schintler et al., 2023; Liu & Shah, 2023; Akella et al., 2025; Bonifazi et al., 2025; Zhuang et al., 2025).”
Lin, T.-L., Chen, W.-C., Hsiao, T.-F., Liu, H.-I., Yeh, Y., Chan, Y.-K., Lien, W.-S., Kuo, P.-Y., Yu, P., & Shuai, H.-H. (2025) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.11113 · Cited by 23 · cited 1×
“3 Beyond prompt injection, Lin et al. (2025b) show that targeted textual adversarial attacks (e.g., character swaps or synonym substitutions) can inflate LLM review scores when perturbations are strategically placed in specific document regions.”
A Critical Examination of the Ethics of AI-Mediated Peer ReviewPreprint
Schintler, L., McNeely, C., & Witte, J. (2023) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.12356 · Cited by 22 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Otherwise, well-known issues of LLM hallucination and bias could compromise the fairness of AI-enhanced peer review (Schintler et al., 2023; Liu & Shah, 2023; Akella et al., 2025; Bonifazi et al., 2025; Zhuang et al., 2025).”
LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations
Panickssery, A., Bowman, S. R., & Feng, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.13076 · Cited by 18 · cited 16× · see citing works
“In short, while LLMs can assist human scientists, fully automating peer review raises significant fairness concerns.”
InfluentialAI tools are spotting errors in research papers: inside a growing movement
Gibney, E. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-025-00648-5 · Cited by 17 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, current systems exhibit unacceptably high false positive rates, as high as 35% (Gibney, 2025a).”
Just Put a Human in the Loop? Investigating LLM-Assisted Annotation for Subjective Tasks
Schroeder, H., Roy, D., & Kabbara, J. (2025) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025 · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-acl.1323 · Cited by 16 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Across high-stakes human-AI workflows—from data annotation (Schroeder et al., 2025) to real coding agent sessions (Baumann et al., 2026)—providing humans with AI outputs measurably shifts what they produce.”
Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment
Cortes, C., & Lawrence, N. D. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.09774 · Cited by 15 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A retrospective found no correlation between reviewer scores and citation impact for accepted papers, suggesting that disagreement partly reflects genuine uncertainty papers’ future impact (Cortes & Lawrence, 2021).”
ReviewerToo: Should AI Join The Program Committee? A Look At The Future of Peer ReviewPreprint
Sahu, G., Larochelle, H., Charlin, L., & Pal, C. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.08867 · Cited by 15 · cited 1× · see citing works
“(Cheng et al., 2025; Fanous et al., 2025; Sahu et al., 2025) Do reviewers catch AI errors, or do they propagate them?”
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Using watermarked PDFs to detect LLM use (Rao et al., 2025b), ICML 2026 ended up desk-rejecting 497 papers ( ∼ 2% of all submissions) after flagging ∼ 1% of all reviews as violating the no-LLM policy that those reviewers had explicitly agreed to (Agarwal et al., 2026).”
Evaluating science: A comparison of human and AI reviewers
Shcherbiak, A., Habibnia, H., BOHM, R. M., & Fiedler, S. (2024) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2024.24 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
No more Reviewer #2: Subverting Automatic Paper-Reviewer Assignment using Adversarial Learning
Eisenhofer, T., Quiring, E., Möller, J., Riepel, D., Holz, T., & Rieck, K. (2023) · USENIX Security Symposium · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.14443 · Cited by 14 · cited 1×
“The vulnerability of automated paper processing systems to adversarial manipulation predates the current wave of LLM-based reviewing (Tran & Jaiswal, 2019; Eisenhofer et al., 2023).”
Investigating Agency of LLMs in Human-AI Collaboration Tasks
Sharma, A., Rao, S., Brockett, C., Malhotra, A., Jojic, N., & Dolan, B. (2024) · Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.119 · Cited by 13 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The broader question—which must address difficult questions of agency (Sharma et al., 2024) and broader ethical implications (Resnik et al., 2008)—is: what would constitute sufficient conditions?”
Paper Copilot: Tracking the Evolution of Peer Review in AI ConferencesPreprint
Yang, J., Wei, Q.-Y., & Pei, J. (2025) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.13201 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationThe AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates
Russo, G., Horta Ribeiro, M., Davidson, T. R., Veselovsky, V., & West, R. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757667 · Cited by 12 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Meanwhile, LLM-assisted or fully LLM-generated reviews are already present at scale (Russo et al., 2025; Emi, 2025).”
LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet?Preprint
Li, R., Gu, J.-C., Kung, P.-N., Xia, H.-M., Liu, J., Kong, X., Sui, Z.-F., & Peng, N.-Y. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.12367 · Cited by 12 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, evaluations consistently find that LLMs correlate weakly with human judgments (Zhu et al., 2025; Shcher-2 (Akella et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025b; Bianchi et al., 2025b; Abdul-hai et al., 2026), and fail to distinguish strong from weak papers (Bonifazi et al., 2025).”
A 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“ICLR 2025 deployed a Review Feedback Agent in a study of over 20,000 reviews, finding that 27% of reviewers who received AI feedback updated their reviews (Thakkar et al., 2026).”
Tran, D., & Jaiswal, C. (2019) · Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics & Mobile Communication Conference · doi:10.1109/uemcon47517.2019.8992996 · Cited by 11 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The vulnerability of automated paper processing systems to adversarial manipulation predates the current wave of LLM-based reviewing (Tran & Jaiswal, 2019; Eisenhofer et al., 2023).”
Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science
Bianchi, F., Queen, O., Thakkar, N., Sun, E., & Zou, J. (2025) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02963-8 · Cited by 10 · cited 3× · see citing works
“1 AI reviews for this paper are provided in Appendix H. venues now experiment with fully automated AI reviewer agents (Bianchi et al., 2025b).”
Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process
Kargaran, A. H., Nikeghbal, N., Yang, J., & Ousidhoum, N. D. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.15462 · Cited by 10 · cited 1×
“The need for explicit community deliberation about peer review values and automation boundaries has been proposed as a call for more transparent and regulated processes (Yang, 2025).”
Where Do LLMs Go Wrong? Diagnosing Automated Peer Review via Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation
Li, J., Li, Y.-H., Hu, X., Gao, M., & Wan, X.-J. (2025) · International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3746252.3761274 · Cited by 9 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Li et al. (2025a) further identified recurring weaknesses in LLM reviews, including misclassification of methodological flaws and misinterpretation of critiques.”
Stop DDoS Attacking the Research Community with AI-Generated Survey Papers
Lin, J., Shan, R., Zhu, J.-C., Xi, Y.-J., Yu, Y., & Zhang, W.-N. (2025) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.09686 · Cited by 9 · cited 1×
“However, it faces many challenges (Shah, 2022; Lin et al., 2025a): Submission volumes grow faster than reviewer pools can expand, and LLM-written reviews are steadily increasing (Liang et al., 2024a; Russo et al., 2025; Emi, 2025).”
Fairness in Online Ad Delivery
Baumann, J., Sapieżyński, P., Heitz, C., & Hannák, A. (2024) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658980 · Cited by 8 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Without proper understanding, we risk repeating the mistakes of AI-based decision system automation that were later found to be harmful and discriminatory (Barocas & Selbst, 2016; Miller, 2015; Angwin et al., 2016; Pagan et al., 2023; Baumann et al., 2024).”
Self-citationPre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language ModelsPreprint
Akella, A. P., Siravuri, H. V., & Rohatgi, S. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.22145 · Cited by 7 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Otherwise, well-known issues of LLM hallucination and bias could compromise the fairness of AI-enhanced peer review (Schintler et al., 2023; Liu & Shah, 2023; Akella et al., 2025; Bonifazi et al., 2025; Zhuang et al., 2025).”
What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?
Kuznetsov, I., Afzal, O. M., Dercksen, K., Dycke, N., Goldberg, A., Hope, T., Hovy, D., Kummerfeld, J. K., Lauscher, A., Leyton-Brown, K., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.06563 · Cited by 6 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Beyond reviewer assistance, LLMs can potentially be deployed across the entire pipeline: reviewer-paper matching, rebuttal discussions, meta-review generation, acceptance decisions, award selection, and camera-ready verification (Kuznetsov et al., 2024).”
Self-citationUsefulness of LLMs as an Author Checklist Assistant for Scientific Papers: NeurIPS'24 Experiment
Goldberg, A., Ullah, I., Khuong, T. G. H., Rachmat, B. K., Xu, Z., Guyon, I., & Shah, N. B. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.03417 · Cited by 4 · cited 1× · see citing works
“NeurIPS 2024 tested an LLM checklist assistant, which was found to be helpful but game-able (Goldberg et al., 2024).”
ML Researchers Support Openness in Peer Review But Are Concerned About Resubmission BiasPreprint
Rao, V., Payan, J., McCallum, A., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.23439 · Cited by 4 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Despite this trend, a recent survey found that 56% of ICLR 2025 reviewers do not support official AI-generated reviews (Rao et al., 2025a).”
EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in Text
Thai, K., Emi, B., Masrour, E., & Iyyer, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.03154 · Cited by 3
Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond)
Jiang, L., Chai, Y., Li, M., Liu, M., Fok, R., Dziri, N., Tsvetkov, Y., Sap, M., Albalak, A., & Choi, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.22954 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“It is well-documented that instruction-tuned LLMs produce homogeneous outputs (Zhang et al., 2025; West & Potts, 2025; Jiang et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2026; Goel et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2025a).”
OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews
Idahl, M., & Ahmadi, Z. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.11948 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Researchers and practitioners have explored various ways to use AI to review papers (Yuan et al., 2022; Checco et al., 2021), with recent work showing promising performance (Liang et al., 2024b; Idahl & Ahmadi, 2025).”
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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Consistent with our position, they found that participants rated AI reviews favorably on technical dimensions yet viewed them as “complementary rather than interchangeable” with human review (Biswas et al., 2026).”
When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review
Zhu, C., Xiong, J., Ma, R., Lu, Z., Liu, Y., & Li, L. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.09912 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, evaluations consistently find that LLMs correlate weakly with human judgments (Zhu et al., 2025; Shcher-2 (Akella et al., 2025; Li et al., 2025b; Bianchi et al., 2025b; Abdul-hai et al., 2026), and fail to distinguish strong from weak papers (Bonifazi et al., 2025).”
To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis
Bianchi, F., Kwon, Y., Izzo, Z., Zhang, L., & Zou, J. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.05925 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“AI tools for detecting errors in papers, such as errors in proofs or statistical analyses, are becoming increasingly common (Liu & Shah, 2023; Bianchi et al., 2025a).”
Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare
(2023) · The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603202 · cited 2×
“This shows that human ratings are more predictive of the final decision than ratings from AI-generated reviews, which exemplifies the practical cost of algorithmic monoculture (Kleinberg & Raghavan, 2021).”
Base Models Beat Aligned Models at Randomness and Creativity
West, P., & Potts, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.00047 · cited 1×
“It is well-documented that instruction-tuned LLMs produce homogeneous outputs (Zhang et al., 2025; West & Potts, 2025; Jiang et al., 2025; Hu et al., 2026; Goel et al., 2025; Kim et al., 2025a).”
Flagged first, then by citations
47 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- AAAI. AAAI Launches AI-Powered Peer Review As- sessment System. https://aaai.org/aaai- launches-ai-powered-peer-review- assessment-system/, 2025.
- Beygelzimer, A., Dauphin, Y., Liang, P., and Vaughan, J. W. The neurips 2021 consis- tency experiment. Neural Information Process- ing Systems blog post, 2021. URL https: //blog.neurips.cc/2021/12/08/the- neurips-2021-consistency-experiment.
- Bonifazi, G., Buratti, C., Marchetti, M., Parlapiano, F., Traini, D., Ursino, D., Virgili, L., et al. Are large lan- guage models better peer-reviewers than humans? an early investigation on openreview. In Proc. of the Italian Conference on Big Data and Data Science (ITADATA'25), 2025.
- Buc ¸inca, Z., Malaya, M. B., and Gajos, K. Z. To trust or to think: Cognitive forcing functions can reduce over- reliance on ai in ai-assisted decision-making. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 5(CSCW1), April 2021. doi: 10.1145/3449287. URL https://doi.org/10. 1145/3449287. · DOI · Paper page
- Chairs, I. . P. Iclr 2026 response to llm-generated papers and reviews. ICLR blog post, 2025. URL https://blog.iclr.cc/2025/11/19/iclr- 2026-response-to-llm-generated- papers-and-reviews/.
- Cheng, M., Yu, S., Lee, C., Khadpe, P., Ibrahim, L., and Jurafsky, D. Social sycophancy: A broader understanding of llm sycophancy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.13995, 2025. · arXiv
- Emi, B. Pangram Predicts 21% of ICLR Reviews are AI- Generated. https://www.pangram.com/blog/ pangram-predicts-21-of-iclr-reviews- are-ai-generated, 2025.
- Fanous, A., Goldberg, J., Agarwal, A., Lin, J., Zhou, A., Xu, S., Bikia, V., Daneshjou, R., and Koyejo, S. Syceval: Evaluating llm sycophancy. Proceed- ings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 8(1):893-900, 2025. doi: 10.1609/aies.v8i1. 36598. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index. php/AIES/article/view/36598. · DOI · Paper page
- Kim, E. M., Garg, A., Peng, K., and Garg, N. Cor- related errors in large language models. In Forty- second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025a. URL https://openreview.net/forum? id=kzYq2hfyHB.
- Curran As- sociates, Inc., 2024. doi: 10.52202/079017-2197. URL https://proceedings.neurips. cc/paper_files/paper/2024/file/ 7f1f0218e45f5414c79c0679633e47bc- Paper-Conference.pdf. · DOI · Paper page
- Sorensen, T., Moore, J., Fisher, J., Gordon, M., Mireshghal- lah, N., Rytting, C. M., Ye, A., Jiang, L., Lu, X., Dziri, N., Althoff, T., and Choi, Y. Position: a roadmap to plural- istic alignment. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
- Yang, J. Position: The artificial intelligence and machine learning community should adopt a more transparent and regulated peer review process. In Forty-second Inter- national Conference on Machine Learning Position Pa- per Track, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=gnyqRarPzW.
- Zhang, Y., Diddee, H., Holm, S., Liu, H., Liu, X., Samuel, V., Wang, B., and Ippolito, D. Noveltybench: Evaluating creativity and diversity in language models. In Second Conference on Language Modeling, 2025. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=XZm1ekzERf.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SafeReview: Defending LLM-based Review Systems Against Adversarial Hidden Prompts
Xin, Y., Weng, Y.-X., Zhu, M.-J., Ling, Y., Qin, C.-W., Backes, M., Zhang, Y., & Yang, L.-Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.26506 · Cited by 4
“While evaluation benchmarks (Funkquist et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2024; Kang et al., 2018) and ethical analyses (Ye et al., 2024; Latona et al., 2024) have advanced the field, existing systems struggle with complex assessments and remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks, high-lighting the need for…”
FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Peer Review with Execution-Based Claim Verification
Yue, L., Ouyang, C.-Q., Huang, R., Xu, H., Li, L., Zheng, L.-B., Liu, Y.-C., Liu, W., Pan, S.-W., Di, S.-M., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.04074 · Cited by 4
“A parallel line of work raises fairness, reliability, and security concerns for LLM reviewers integrated into the review pipeline (Li et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2026b; Zhu et al., 2025a; Baumann et al., 2026).”
No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions
Yang, X., Sha, Z., Li, J.-B., Yu, J., Sun, Y., Zhao, M., Fang, J., Guo, X., Wu, Y., Hu, X., et al. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.13044 · Cited by 3
“The mean Δ 𝑆 is +1.42 in the matched setting and +0.88 in the mismatched setting; the matched advantage is consistent with the known self-preference bias in LLM evaluators [3].”
InfluentialGaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific CommunityPreprint
Li, L., Zhang, Q., Davies, X., Qiu, J., & Gal, Y. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10159 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“For example, eight sampled ratings for an original abstract might vary as [3 , 4 , 4 , 4 , 5 , 4 , 4 , 3] , reflecting a noisy and unstable judgement even if the mean score is moderate; after rephrasing, the same eight samples may cluster much more tightly around the acceptance region, for example…”
GoodPoint: Learning Constructive Scientific Paper Feedback from Author ResponsesPreprint
Mun, J., Jung, C., Zhou, X.-H., Kim, H., & Sap, M. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11924 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Yet unchecked automation risks eroding the critical judgment of researchers and the broader scientific community, ultimately degrading the quality of science (Baumann et al., 2026; Wilder, 2025).”
Wang, C.-G., Li, M., Fan, C., Chen, J.-P., Chen, H., Zhou, T.-Y., & Zhou, D.-W. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.39027 · Cited by 2
“Studies of automated review further reveal vulnerabilities to hidden instructions, artificial perturbations, and visible content-preserving revisions (Ye et al., 2024; Lin et al., 2025; Kaneko, 2026; Li et al., 2026b; Baumann et al., 2026).”
The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing
Wang, C.-G., Li, M., Braimah, A., Fan, C., Wang, T., Guan, W.-J., Zhang, R.-Y., Zhou, T.-Y., & Zhou, D.-W. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.07713 · Cited by 2
“Baumann et al. (2026) report a similar effect: rewriting papers without changing their scientific content increased AI-review scores by an average of 0.45 points.”
InfluentialHumanly: A Configurable and Traceable Environment for Human-AI Collaborative WritingPreprint
Zhu, S.-Z., Zhang, H.-Q., Yang, X., Tang, J.-Y., Yi, N., Du, X.-X., Yang, S., Pentland, A., Baumann, J., & Pei, J.-X. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.21758 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Red Queen Gödel Machine: Co-Evolving Agents and Their Evaluators
Iacob, A., Jovanović, A., Shen, W. F., Burkhardt, D., Kurmanji, M., Tastan, N., Sani, L., Venanzi, N. A. E., Nie, J., Odonnat, A., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.26294 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“3.5).”
InfluentialReview Arcade: On the Human Alignment and Gameability of LLM Reviews
Hatzel, H. O., Steindl, S., & Strich, J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.28897 · Cited by 1
“Baumann et al. (2026) report a Pearson correlation of 0.14 across human reviewers, while (Cortes and Lawrence, 2021) find a Pearson correlation of 0.55 in their data after calibrating for cross-reviewer scale interpretation using a Gaussian model.”
InfluentialHow Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review
Li, M., Wang, C., Li, X., Zeng, X., Li, D., Shi, P., Zhou, D., & Zhou, T. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.08975
Use and Effects of LLMs in Peer Review: A Randomized Experiment and Survey at ICML 2026
Kim, S. S. Y., Deng, W. H., Vaughan, J. W., Su, B., Su, W., Agarwal, A., Li, S., Jaggi, M., Goldstein, D. G., Shah, N. B., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.19420
“…evaluate if the claims made in a paper are supported with evidence [56, 88], benchmarking the quality of model-generated reviews against human ones [6, 10, 82], probing models’ failure modes such as sycophancy and hallucination [53, 77], and, more recently, designing and building LLM-powered tools…”
Wang, Y.-C., Wang, C.-G., Li, M., Zhuang, H.-M., Zeng, X.-Y., Chen, H., Cobbina, K. A., Nguyen, D., Li, D.-Q., Zhou, D.-W., et al. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2611.02244
“Recent rewriting studies further show that AI review scores can change through automated paper rewriting and controlled rhetorical changes that preserve reported scientific content (Baumann et al., 2026; Li et al., 2026b; Wang et al., 2026b).”
Style over Substance? Linguistic Bias in LLM-based Peer Review
Vasu, S. S. M., Joshi, S. S., Christmann, P., Sheth, I., Binkytė, R., Chowdhury, K. D., Kerkouche, R., Wang, H.-P., & Fritz, M. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.35254
“Moreover, recent results suggest that even paraphrasing or stylistic properties of a paper can substantially affect LLM-generated review scores (Kaneko, 2026; Kousha & Thelwall, 2026; Baumann et al., 2026).”
Major Revision, Minor Accountability: LLMs as Reviewers of Published Articles in Top-Tier Journals
Guellec, B. L., Kim, S. H., Bentegeac, R., & Hamroun, A. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.31414
“They have also been shown to be vulnerable to cosmetic rewriting, or paper laundering [15].”
Learning Checklists to Reduce Lottery Effects in Scientific Peer Review
Liu, X.-Y., Guo, Z.-Y., Hartline, J. D., & Hullman, J. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.28666
How Well Do LLMs Perform in Peer Review? Evidence from Finance and Accounting
Lu, H., Luo, Y.-C., & Yu, L.-P. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.18435
“In computer science, reviews written by LLMs are compared with the public reviews of human referees (Liang et al., 2024; Jiang and Ng, 2025; Baumann et al., 2026), a randomized trial at ICLR 2025 has tested LLM feedback to referees (Thakkar et al., 2026), and AAAI-26 has reported on its pilot of…”
Training Witnesses: Trusting the Training without Trusting the TrainerPreprint
Liu, H.-J., & Sharma, P. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.33915
“There’s an emerging consensus (Shah, 2026; Baumann et al., 2026; Abid, 2026; Raff et al., 2025; Schaeffer et al., 2025; Rogers & Luccioni, 2024) in the field that finds it hard to trust the papers being written, reproduce the results when trust is missing, or even verify specific claims made in…”
NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs'Capability in Paper Novelty AssessmentPreprint
Zhang, G.-Q., Tan, K.-X., Zhang, M., Ju, L., Jing, W.-Q., Yue, Z.-H., Chen, J.-Y., Wu, S.-Q., Liu, S.-H., Zhang, Y., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.11234
More Criticism Does Not Make a Better Review: EquiReview-R
Zhang, Z.-X., Li, J.-C., Lei, T.-Y., Fu, Y., & Yang, K.-W. (2026) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2609.03943
ReVoicer: Conversational Voice Annotation for Human-Centered, LLM-Assisted Peer Review
Gottsacker, M., Alwin, A., Furuya, H., Lindeman, R., Bruder, G., & Welch, G. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.00299
“Recent empirical evidence also shows that fully automated AI reviewers can converge toward homogeneous “hivemind” feedback and are susceptible to adversarial manipulation, which has prompted calls to withhold automation of review judgment pending rigorous evaluation [2].”
Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generation
Lu, S., Qu, L.-Z., & Gurevych, I. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23233
“…creation and raises accountability concerns: studies show that fully automated reviews become homogenized across different papers (Lu et al., 2025; Baumann et al., 2026), exhibit verification failures (Dycke and Gurevych, 2026; You et al., 2026), and can be susceptible to manipulation (Ye et al.,…”
Rebuttals Move Peer-Review Scores, but Initial-Review Structure Bounds the Movement
Louis, M., Vanleke, T., Ginis, V., & Algaba, A. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.22166
Generative Models Erode Human Temporal Learning Through Market Selection
Cao, W.-J. (2026) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.06572
- Authors
- Baumann, J., Pei, J., Koyejo, S., & Hovy, D.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.03202
- OpenAlex
- W7160402171
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 107
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2205329, 2046795)
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (235328)
- Università Bocconi
- Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- automated peer review, large language models, AI-generated reviews
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
