# Multimodal Peer Review Simulation with Actionable To-Do Recommendations for Community-Aware Manuscript Revisions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.10902 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.10902/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 5 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Nov 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00816/) (2024)
- [MARG: Multi-Agent Review Generation for Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04259/) (2024)
- [DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08569/) (2025)
- [OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11948/) (2024)
- [TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07642/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [MemoNoveltyAgent: A Historical Research Memory-Aware Agent Workflow for Paper Novelty Assessment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.20884/) (2026)
- [PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.16995/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

While large language models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for automating academic workflows, existing systems for academic peer review remain constrained by text-only inputs, limited contextual grounding, and a lack of actionable feedback. In this work, we present an interactive web-based system for multimodal, community-aware peer review simulation to enable effective manuscript revisions before paper submission. Our framework integrates textual and visual information through multimodal LLMs, enhances review quality via retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounded in web-scale OpenReview data, and converts generated reviews into actionable to-do lists using the proposed Action:Objective[#] format, providing structured and traceable guidance. The system integrates seamlessly into existing academic writing platforms, providing interactive interfaces for real-time feedback and revision tracking. Experimental results highlight the effectiveness of the proposed system in generating more comprehensive and useful reviews aligned with expert standards, surpassing ablated baselines and advancing transparent, human-centered scholarly assistance.