# Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20477 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20477/

## 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 (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Multi-Stage Document Ranking with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.14424/) (2019)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.09635/) (2018)
- [NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.06651/) (2022)
- [ReviewRobot: Explainable Paper Review Generation based on Knowledge Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.06119/) (2020)
- [Read, Revise, Repeat: A System Demonstration for Human-in-the-loop Iterative Text Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.03685/) (2022)
- [GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05492/) (2023)
- [Revise and Resubmit: An Intertextual Model of Text-based Collaboration in Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.10805/) (2022)
- [Text Editing by Command](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.12826/) (2020)
- [Aspect-based Sentiment Analysis of Scientific Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03257/) (2020)
- [Diamonds in the Rough: Generating Fluent Sentences from Early-Stage Drafts for Academic Writing Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.09180/) (2019)
- [Langsmith: An Interactive Academic Text Revision System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.04332/) (2020)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 33)

- [Survey on Evaluation of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.16416/) (2025)
- [Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10326/) (2025)
- [IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.04025/) (2024)
- [TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07642/) (2025)
- [Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM-Assisted Writing in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16023/) (2025)
- [AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22394/) (2024)
- [Mind the Blind Spots: A Focus-Level Evaluation Framework for LLM Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17086/) (2025)
- [Paper2Video: Automatic Video Generation from Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.05096/) (2025)
- [The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04484/) (2025)
- [How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23276/) (2025)
- [FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21843/) (2025)
- [Evolutionary Perspectives on the Evaluation of LLM-Based AI Agents: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11102/) (2025)
- [Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10795/) (2025)
- [Help Me Write a Story: Evaluating LLMs' Ability to Generate Writing Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.16007/) (2025)
- [Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.21422/) (2025)
- [Autonomous Research Agents: A Survey of AI Scientists and the Verification Gap](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.05179/) (2026)
- [From Hypothesis to Publication: A Comprehensive Survey of AI-Driven Research Support Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01424/) (2025)
- [RbtAct: Rebuttal as Supervision for Actionable Review Feedback Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.09723/) (2026)
- [Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.27924/) (2026)
- [A Multi-Task Evaluation of LLMs' Processing of Academic Text Input](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11779/) (2025)
- [Gazelle: An Instruction Dataset for Arabic Writing Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18163/) (2024)
- [APRES: An Agentic Paper Revision and Evaluation System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.03142/) (2026)
- [Closing the Loop: Learning to Generate Writing Feedback via Language Model Simulated Student Revisions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.08058/) (2024)
- [CoachGPT: A Scaffolding-based Academic Writing Assistant](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.18149/) (2025)
- [EchoReview: Learning Peer Review from the Echoes of Scientific Citations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00733/) (2026)
- [Multi-Agent Comedy Club: Investigating Community Discussion Effects on LLM Humor Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14770/) (2026)
- [IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15849/) (2026)
- [EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.06025/) (2026)
- [PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers on Overleaf](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08857/) (2026)
- [PaperJury: Due-Process Review for Bounded LaTeX Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16322/) (2026)

## 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.