analiza aiqbench
This research systematically evaluates the efficacy and regulatory landscape of AI-assisted peer review across 111 venues, revealing significant gaps between human-generated feedback and current LLM capabilities in evidence grounding and recommendation accuracy. The study argues that relying solely on aggregate quality scores is misleading for assessing these systems, advocating instead for multi-dimensional evaluation metrics to ensure scientific integrity.
AI-Assisted Peer Review Across Research Communities: From Reviewer AI Policies to LLM Review Quality
arXiv:2608.03581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.
Abstract:AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.
30 pages, 19 figures, 10 tables. Currently under peer review. GitHub link for code and data is given in the paper
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.03581 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2608.03581v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.03581 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 282 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Digital States 2026: AI Moves From Experiment to Infrastructure
govtech.com · 24 sept. 2026

AI in research and publishing (Sep 2026)
LessWrong · 24 sept. 2026

A New Era of Discovery: Google Research at I/O 2026
Google Research · 28 mai 2026
Will it be a golden age or a dark age for mathematics (and science)?
terrytao.wordpress.com · 18 oct. 2026