Can Large Language Models Be Trusted Paper Reviewers? A Feasibility Study
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Academic paper review typically requires substantial time, expertise, and human resources. Large Language Models (LLMs) present a promising method for automating the review process due to their extensive training data, broad knowledge base, and relatively low usage cost. This work explores the feasibility of using LLMs for academic paper review by proposing an automated review system. The system integrates Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), the AutoGen multi-agent system, and Chain-of-Thought prompting to support tasks such as format checking, standardized evaluation, comment generation, and scoring. Experiments conducted on 290 submissions from the WASA 2024 conference using GPT-4o show that LLM-based review significantly reduces review time (average 2.48 hours) and cost (average 104.28 USD). However, the similarity between LLM-selected papers and actual accepted papers remains low (average 38.6%), indicating issues such as hallucination, lack of independent judgment, and retrieval preferences. Therefore, it is recommended to use LLMs as assistive tools to support human reviewers, rather than to replace them.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2025.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2025A Measurement Study of Model Context Protocol Ecosystemcited by 13
- 2026From Isolated Scoring to Collaborative Ranking: A Comparison-Native Framework for LLM-Based Paper Evaluationcited by 2
- 2025Before Humans Join the Team: Diagnosing Coordination Failures in Healthcare Robot Team Simulationcited by 1
- 2026GraphReview: Scientific Paper Evaluation via LLM-based Graph Evidence Expansioncited by 0
- 2026GraphReview: Scientific Paper Evaluation via LLM-based Graph Evidence Expansion26 May 2026
- 2026From Isolated Scoring to Collaborative Ranking: A Comparison-Native Framework for LLM-Based Paper Evaluation18 Mar 2026
- 2025A Measurement Study of Model Context Protocol Ecosystem29 Sep 2025
- 2025Before Humans Join the Team: Diagnosing Coordination Failures in Healthcare Robot Team Simulation6 Aug 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026LLM-as-a-Reviewer: Benchmarking Their Ability, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Resistance as Paper Reviewers
- 2025MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation
- 2025ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews
- 2025DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process
- 2025Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation
- 2025LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet?
- 2024Automated Literature Review Using NLP Techniques and LLM-Based Retrieval-Augmented Generation
- 2026PeerCheck: Enhancing LLM-Generated Academic Reviews Towards Human-Level Quality