mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance

arXiv 2405.20477 ↗First posted 30 May 2024cs.CLcited by 33

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scientific writing is a challenging task, particularly for novice researchers who often rely on feedback from experienced peers. Recent work has primarily focused on improving surface form and style rather than manuscript content. In this paper, we propose a novel task: automated focused feedback generation for scientific writing assistance. We present SWIF2T: a Scientific WrIting Focused Feedback Tool. It is designed to generate specific, actionable and coherent comments, which identify weaknesses in a scientific paper and/or propose revisions to it. Our approach consists of four components - planner, investigator, reviewer and controller - leveraging multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) to implement them. We compile a dataset of 300 peer reviews citing weaknesses in scientific papers and conduct human evaluation. The results demonstrate the superiority in specificity, reading comprehension, and overall helpfulness of SWIF2T's feedback compared to other approaches. In our analysis, we also identified cases where automatically generated reviews were judged better than human ones, suggesting opportunities for integration of AI-generated feedback in scientific writing.

Key facts. Cited by 33 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2024.

Builds on

12 of 30 references.

References · 12

  1. 2019Multi-Stage Document Ranking with BERTcited by 201
  2. 2023Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysiscited by 200
  3. 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 136
  4. 2022NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Reviewcited by 60
  5. 2020ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesiscited by 54
  6. 2022Read, Revise, Repeat: A System Demonstration for Human-in-the-loop Iterative Text Revisioncited by 46
  7. 2023GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Studycited by 40
  8. 2022Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Reviewcited by 37
  9. 2020Text Editing by Commandcited by 33
  10. 2020Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviewscited by 24
  11. 2019Diamonds in the Rough: Generating Fluent Sentences from Early-Stage Drafts for Academic Writing Assistancecited by 16
  12. 2020Langsmith: An Interactive Academic Text Revision Systemcited by 13

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 5; 2025: 16; 2026: 12.

33 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agentscited by 204
  2. 2025Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A surveycited by 61
  3. 2024IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedbackcited by 42
  4. 2025TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Reviewcited by 31
  5. 2025Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM-Assisted Writing in the Wildcited by 25
  6. 2024AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist Researchcited by 24
  7. 2025Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviewscited by 24
  8. 2025Paper2Video: Automatic Video Generation from Scientific Paperscited by 24
  9. 2025The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authorscited by 16
  10. 2025How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?cited by 15
  11. 2025FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Paperscited by 14
  12. 2025Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 13
21 more
  1. 2025Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedbackcited by 12
  2. 2025Help Me Write a Story: Evaluating LLMs' Ability to Generate Writing Feedbackcited by 11
  3. 2025Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Frameworkcited by 11
  4. 2026Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gapcited by 9
  5. 2025From Hypothesis to Publication: A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Driven Research Support Systemscited by 8
  6. 2026RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generationcited by 6
  7. 2026Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Futurecited by 6
  8. 2025A Multi-Task Evaluation of LLMs' Processing of Academic Text Inputcited by 5
  9. 2024Gazelle: An Instruction Dataset for Arabic Writing Assistancecited by 4
  10. 2026APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation Systemcited by 3
  11. 2024Closing the Loop: Learning to Generate Writing Feedback via Language Model Simulated Student Revisionscited by 2
  12. 2025CoachGPT: A Scaffolding-based Academic Writing Assistantcited by 1
  13. 2026EchoReview: Learning Peer Review from the Echoes of Scientific Citationscited by 1
  14. 2026Multi-Agent Comedy Club: Investigating Community Discussion Effects on LLM Humor Generationcited by 1
  15. 2026IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVRcited by 1
  16. 2026EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillationcited by 1
  17. 2026PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers on Overleafcited by 1
  18. 2026PaperJury: Due-Process Review for Bounded LaTeX Revisioncited by 1
  19. 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
  20. 2024ClaimBrush: A Novel Framework for Automated Patent Claim Refinement Based on Large Language Modelscited by 0
  21. 2026Judgment-Grounded Expansion for Peer Review Generationcited by 0