# MMReview: A Multidisciplinary and Multimodal Benchmark for LLM-Based Peer Review Automation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.14146 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14146/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 24 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 Aug 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 24 of 24)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11520/) (2021)
- [Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07791/) (2024)
- [Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12624/) (2024)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04181/) (2023)
- [Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.16950/) (2024)
- [A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.09635/) (2018)
- [ReviewerGPT? An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Paper Reviewing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.00622/) (2023)
- [MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04259/) (2024)
- [Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.00176/) (2021)
- [Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10326/) (2025)
- [NLPeer: A Unified Resource for the Computational Study of Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.06651/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models Assume People are More Rational than We Really are](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.17055/) (2024)
- [Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05688/) (2024)
- [MReD: A Meta-Review Dataset for Structure-Controllable Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.07474/) (2021)
- [GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05492/) (2023)
- [Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.04966/) (2025)
- [ReviewAgents: Bridging the Gap Between Human and AI-Generated Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08506/) (2025)
- [From Words to Worth: Newborn Article Impact Prediction with LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03934/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24530/) (2026)
- [ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22638/) (2026)
- [Beyond Rating: A Comprehensive Evaluation and Benchmark for AI Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.19502/) (2026)
- [CoCoReviewBench: A Completeness- and Correctness-Oriented Benchmark for AI Reviewers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07905/) (2026)
- [FMMD: A multimodal multidisciplinary dataset of open peer reviews from F1000Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.14285/) (2026)
- [Supporting Artifact Evaluation with LLMs: A Study with Published Security Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06862/) (2026)
- [MemoNoveltyAgent: A Historical Research Memory-Aware Agent Workflow for Paper Novelty Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20884/) (2026)
- [Does AI Reviewer See the Full Picture? Attacking and Defending Multimodal Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.12716/) (2026)
- [Beyond Final Decisions: A Process-Centric Benchmark for Transparent AI-Assisted Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.05947/) (2026)
- [PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16995/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With the rapid growth of academic publications, peer review has become an essential yet time-consuming responsibility within the research community. Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly been adopted to assist in the generation of review comments; however, current LLM-based review tasks lack a unified evaluation benchmark to rigorously assess the models' ability to produce comprehensive, accurate, and human-aligned assessments, particularly in scenarios involving multimodal content such as figures and tables. To address this gap, we propose MMReview, a comprehensive benchmark that spans multiple disciplines and modalities. MMReview includes multimodal content and expert-written review comments for 240 papers across 17 research domains within four major academic disciplines: Artificial Intelligence, Natural Sciences, Engineering Sciences, and Social Sciences. We design a total of 13 tasks grouped into four core categories, aimed at evaluating the performance of LLMs and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) in step-wise review generation, outcome formulation, alignment with human preferences, and robustness to adversarial input manipulation. Extensive experiments conducted on 16 open-source models and 5 advanced closed-source models demonstrate the thoroughness of the benchmark. We envision MMReview as a critical step toward establishing a standardized foundation for the development of automated peer review systems.