Paper Copilot: Tracking the Evolution of Peer Review in AI Conferences
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and limited accountability under compressed timelines. In response, conference organizers have introduced new policies and interventions to preserve review standards. Yet these ad-hoc changes often create further concerns and confusion about the review process, leaving how papers are ultimately accepted - and how practices evolve across years - largely opaque. We present Paper Copilot, a system that creates durable digital archives of peer reviews across a wide range of computer-science venues, an open dataset that enables researchers to study peer review at scale, and a large-scale empirical analysis of ICLR reviews spanning multiple years. By releasing both the infrastructure and the dataset, Paper Copilot supports reproducible research on the evolution of peer review. We hope these resources help the community track changes, diagnose failure modes, and inform evidence-based improvements toward a more robust, transparent, and reliable peer-review system.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Oct 2025.
Builds on
7 of 23 references.
References · 7
- 2018A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applicationscited by 135
- 2021Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experimentcited by 49
- 2022MOPRD: A multidisciplinary open peer review datasetcited by 32
- 2025OpenReview Should be Protected and Leveraged as a Community Asset for Research in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 5
- 2023The Open Review-Based (ORB) dataset: Towards Automatic Assessment of Scientific Papers and Experiment Proposals in High-Energy Physicscited by 4
- 2016The Research Space: using the career paths of scholars to predict the evolution of the research output of individuals, institutions, and nationscited by 2
- 2025Position: The Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Community Should Adopt a More Transparent and Regulated Peer Review Processcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 9.
10 papers.
- 2026Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluationcited by 12
- 2025Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Processcited by 8
- 2026ReproRepo: Scaling Reproducibility Audits with GitHub Repository Issuescited by 2
- 2026Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Toolcited by 2
- 2026Reviewer Scores Are Not Comparable Across Research Areas in ML Peer Reviewcited by 2
- 2026Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agentscited by 1
- 2026No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisionscited by 1
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishingcited by 1
- 2026Rebuttals Move Peer-Review Scores, but Initial-Review Structure Bounds the Movementcited by 0
- 2026Science Utopia? Closed-Loop LLM Simulation of Academic Research Ecosystemscited by 0
- 2026Science Utopia? Closed-Loop LLM Simulation of Academic Research Ecosystems1 Oct 2026
- 2026The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing7 Sep 2026
- 2026Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool26 Jun 2026
- 2026Rebuttals Move Peer-Review Scores, but Initial-Review Structure Bounds the Movement20 Jun 2026
- 2026ReproRepo: Scaling Reproducibility Audits with GitHub Repository Issues16 Jun 2026
- 2026No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions11 Jun 2026
- 2026Position: Academic Conferences are Potentially Facing Denominator Gaming Caused by Fully Automated Scientific Agents11 May 2026
- 2026Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation4 May 2026
- 2026Reviewer Scores Are Not Comparable Across Research Areas in ML Peer Review30 Apr 2026
- 2025Insights from the ICLR Peer Review and Rebuttal Process19 Nov 2025