# EchoReview: Learning Peer Review from the Echoes of Scientific Citations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.00733 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00733/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 19 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 19 of 19)

- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [LlamaFactory: Unified Efficient Fine-Tuning of 100+ Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13372/) (2024)
- [Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Models: A Comprehensive Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14608/) (2024)
- [MinerU: An Open-Source Solution for Precise Document Content Extraction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.18839/) (2024)
- [CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.00816/) (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)
- [DeepReview: Improving LLM-based Paper Review with Human-like Deep Thinking Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.08569/) (2025)
- [AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12708/) (2024)
- [Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10326/) (2025)
- [Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.09774/) (2021)
- [Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.05688/) (2024)
- [GPT4 is Slightly Helpful for Peer-Review Assistance: A Pilot Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05492/) (2023)
- [Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.20477/) (2024)
- [TreeReview: A Dynamic Tree of Questions Framework for Deep and Efficient LLM-based Scientific Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07642/) (2025)
- [An Open Review of OpenReview: A Critical Analysis of the Machine Learning Conference Review Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2010.05137/) (2020)
- [Can LLMs Identify Critical Limitations within Scientific Research? A Systematic Evaluation on AI Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02694/) (2025)
- [Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05519/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [RubricReviewer: From Direct Critique to Objective and Comprehensive Rubric-Driven Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.00005/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As the volume of scientific submissions continues to grow rapidly, traditional peer review systems are facing unprecedented scalability pressures, highlighting the urgent need for automated reviewing methods that are both scalable and reliable. Existing supervised fine-tuning approaches based on real review data are fundamentally constrained by single-source of data as well as the inherent subjectivity and inconsistency of human reviews, limiting their ability to support high-quality automated reviewers. To address these issues, we propose EchoReview, a citation-context-driven data synthesis framework that systematically mines implicit collective evaluative signals from academic citations and transforms scientific community's long-term judgments into structured review-style data. Based on this pipeline, we construct EchoReview-16K, the first large-scale, cross-conference, and cross-year citation-driven review dataset, and train an automated reviewer, EchoReviewer-7B. Experimental results demonstrate that EchoReviewer-7B can achieve significant and stable improvements on core review dimensions such as evidence support and review comprehensiveness, validating citation context as a robust and effective data paradigm for reliable automated peer review.