# Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10159 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.10159/

## Key facts

- Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 12 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [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)
- [Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.15497/) (2026)
- [The AI Review Lottery: Widespread AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Boost Paper Scores and Acceptance Rates](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.02150/) (2024)
- [OpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.11948/) (2024)
- [Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14873/) (2024)
- [Position: The AI Conference Peer Review Crisis Demands Author Feedback and Reviewer Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.04966/) (2025)
- [AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.13940/) (2026)
- [Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.03202/) (2026)
- [Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.15534/) (2025)
- [SECA: Semantically Equivalent and Coherent Attacks for Eliciting LLM Hallucinations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04398/) (2025)
- [Stop DDoS Attacking the Research Community with AI-Generated Survey Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.09686/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.08975/) (2026)
- [The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07713/) (2026)
- [A Missing Piece for Trustworthy AI Reviewers: From Benchmarking Rhetorical Robustness to SciCore Review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.39027/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and 1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.