# Are we still able to recognize pearls? Machine-driven peer review and the risk to creativity: An explainable RAG-XAI detection framework with markers extraction

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07964 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.07964/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 41 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Apr 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Billion-scale similarity search with GPUs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1702.08734/) (2017)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [Monitoring AI-Modified Content at Scale: A Case Study on the Impact of ChatGPT on AI Conference Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07183/) (2024)
- [A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1804.09635/) (2018)
- [AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12708/) (2024)
- [The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02150/) (2024)
- [Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.10326/) (2025)
- [Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? Investigating AI Text Detectability in Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03019/) (2024)
- [Detecting LLM-Generated Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15772/) (2025)
- [Breaking the Reviewer: Assessing the Vulnerability of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review Under Textual Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11113/) (2025)
- [Justice in Judgment: Unveiling (Hidden) Bias in LLM-assisted Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.13400/) (2025)
- [Gen-Review: A Large-scale Dataset of AI-Generated (and Human-written) Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21192/) (2025)
- [Detecting AI-Generated Content in Academic Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00319/) (2026)
- [Graph-Guided Passage Retrieval for Author-Centric Structured Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14376/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The integration of large language models (LLMs) into peer review raises a concern beyond authorship and detection: the potential cascading automation of the entire editorial process. As reviews become partially or fully machine-generated, it becomes plausible that editorial decisions may also be delegated to algorithmic systems, leading to a fully automated evaluation pipeline. They risk reshaping the criteria by which scientific work is assessed. This paper argues that machine-driven assessment may systematically favor standardized, pattern-conforming research while penalizing unconventional and paradigm-shifting ideas that require contextual human judgment. We consider that this shift could lead to epistemic homogenization, where researchers are implicitly incentivized to optimize their work for algorithmic approval rather than genuine discovery. To address this risk, we introduce an explainable framework (RAG-XAI) for assessing review quality and detecting automated patterns using markers LLM extractor, aiming to preserve transparency, accountability and creativity in science. The proposed framework achieves near-perfect detection performance, with XGBoost, Random Forest and LightGBM reaching 99.61% accuracy, AUC-ROC above 0.999 and F1-scores of 0.9925 on the test set, while maintaining extremely low false positive rates (<0.23%) and false negative rates (~0.8%). In contrast, the logistic regression baseline performs substantially worse (89.97% accuracy, F1-score 0.8314). Feature importance and SHAP analyses identify absence of personal signals and repetition patterns as the dominant predictors. Additionally, the RAG component achieves 90.5% top-1 retrieval accuracy, with strong same-class clustering in the embedding space, further supporting the reliability of the framework's outputs.