mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

arXiv 2405.06563 ↗First posted 10 May 2024cs.CLcited by 25

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

Key facts. Cited by 25 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 80 of its 162 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2024.

Builds on

80 of 162 references.

References · 80

  1. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  2. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  3. 2020Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claimscited by 554
  4. 2020SPECTER: Document-level Representation Learning using Citation-informed Transformerscited by 430
  5. 2023Nougat: Neural Optical Understanding for Academic Documentscited by 245
  6. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  7. 2023SciMON: Scientific Inspiration Machines Optimized for Noveltycited by 179
  8. 2019Show Your Work: Improved Reporting of Experimental Resultscited by 169
  9. 2019Predictive Biases in Natural Language Processing Models: A Conceptual Framework and Overviewcited by 137
  10. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
  11. 2020TLDR: Extreme Summarization of Scientific Documentscited by 136
  12. 2023ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewingcited by 122
38 more
  1. 2024MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Paperscited by 104
  2. 2022SciFact-Open: Towards open-domain scientific claim verificationcited by 94
  3. 2023AutomaTikZ: Text-Guided Synthesis of Scientific Vector Graphics with TikZcited by 79
  4. 2021DOC2PPT: Automatic Presentation Slides Generation from Scientific Documentscited by 70
  5. 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
  6. 2022Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Textcited by 57
  7. 2021Just What do You Think You're Doing, Dave?' A Checklist for Responsible Data Use in NLPcited by 47
  8. 2018Content-Based Citation Recommendationcited by 43
  9. 2023Evaluating Evaluation Metrics: A Framework for Analyzing NLG Evaluation Metrics using Measurement Theorycited by 43
  10. 2021MReD: A Meta-Review Dataset for Structure-Controllable Text Generationcited by 42
  11. 2019Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviewscited by 41
  12. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  13. 2020Mitigating Manipulation in Peer Review via Randomized Reviewer Assignmentscited by 38
  14. 2021AmbiFC: Fact-Checking Ambiguous Claims with Evidencecited by 38
  15. 2022Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Reviewcited by 37
  16. 2020Citation Recommendation: Approaches and Datasetscited by 36
  17. 2021DISAPERE: A Dataset for Discourse Structure in Peer Review Discussionscited by 36
  18. 2023ARIES: A Corpus of Scientific Paper Edits Made in Response to Peer Reviewscited by 34
  19. 2017Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Processcited by 33
  20. 2020What Can We Do to Improve Peer Review in NLP?cited by 32
  21. 2019Does My Rebuttal Matter? Insights from a Major NLP Conferencecited by 31
  22. 2018PeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Reviewcited by 30
  23. 2019Paper Matching with Local Fairness Constraintscited by 30
  24. 2021MultiCite: Modeling realistic citations requires moving beyond the single-sentence single-label settingcited by 30
  25. 2018Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratingscited by 28
  26. 2022Scim: Intelligent Skimming Support for Scientific Paperscited by 27
  27. 2023Summarizing Multiple Documents with Conversational Structure for Meta-Review Generationcited by 27
  28. 2023Peer Reviews of Peer Reviews: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Other Experimentscited by 27
  29. 2022arXivEdits: Understanding the Human Revision Process in Scientific Writingcited by 26
  30. 2019Simple and Effective Paraphrastic Similarity from Parallel Translationscited by 25
  31. 2020Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviewscited by 24
  32. 2019The Diversity-Innovation Paradox in Sciencecited by 21
  33. 2022Towards Automated Document Revision: Grammatical Error Correction, Fluency Edits, and Beyondcited by 20
  34. 2023Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviewscited by 19
  35. 2022Matching Papers and Reviewers at Large Conferencescited by 18
  36. 2023Exploring Jiu-Jitsu Argumentation for Writing Peer Review Rebuttalscited by 18
  37. 2020A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferencescited by 16
  38. 2024LLMs as Meta-Reviewers' Assistants: A Case Studycited by 16

50 most cited of 80 All 80 (JSON)

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 11; 2026: 10.

25 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A surveycited by 61
  2. 2025Transforming Science with Large Language Models: A Survey on AI-assisted Scientific Discovery, Experimentation, Content Generation, and Evaluationcited by 42
  3. 2025Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewardscited by 34
  4. 2025Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Benchmarking AI Text Detection in Peer Reviewcited by 21
  5. 2024Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Reviewcited by 20
  6. 2024Benchmarking LLMs' Judgments with No Gold Standardcited by 19
  7. 2026Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluationcited by 14
  8. 2025LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviewscited by 13
  9. 2025Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluationcited by 12
  10. 2025Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Frameworkcited by 11
  11. 2025Large Language Models Penetration in Scholarly Writing and Peer Reviewcited by 6
  12. 2026On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientistscited by 6
13 more
  1. 2024STRICTA: Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment for Peer Review and Beyondcited by 5
  2. 2025Decision-Making with Deliberation: Meta-reviewing as a Document-grounded Dialoguecited by 3
  3. 2025Position: The Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Community Should Adopt a More Transparent and Regulated Peer Review Processcited by 2
  4. 2024Causal Effect of Group Diversity on Redundancy and Coverage in Peer-Reviewingcited by 1
  5. 2026What happens when reviewers receive AI feedback in their reviews?cited by 1
  6. 2026Supporting Artifact Evaluation with LLMs: A Study with Published Security Research Paperscited by 1
  7. 2026Does AI Reviewer See the Full Picture? Attacking and Defending Multimodal Peer Reviewcited by 1
  8. 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
  9. 2025Paper Quality Assessment based on Individual Wisdom Metrics from Open Peer Reviewcited by 0
  10. 2026Reviewing the Reviewer: LLM-Assisted Reviewer Feedback Generation for Guideline Compliancecited by 0
  11. 2026From peer review nuances to best practicescited by 0
  12. 2026Metag: A dataset to build agentic meta-reviewing capabilitiescited by 0
  13. 2026InternReviewer & InternAdvocate: Objective Reward and Evaluation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning in Peer Review and Rebuttalcited by 0