mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

AI-assisted pre-review of open-source software submissions: an experience report from BOSC 2026

arXiv 2607.27228 ↗First posted 14 Jul 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.DLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Most conferences rely on peer-review of submissions, but as generative AI makes it easier than ever to prepare submission materials, some conferences are seeing an overwhelming surge of submissions. We wanted to see if generative AI could help our conference's volunteer reviewers by pre-reviewing abstracts for certain criteria. The Bioinformatics Open Source Conference (BOSC) was well-positioned to experiment with this, as we already had a detailed rubric used by reviewers to evaluate submitted abstracts on multiple criteria, including openness (public availability of the code or other content associated with the project), valid open source license, and "runnability" (how easy it is to download, build, and run the project - an important measure of reusability). For BOSC 2026, we built bosc-pre-review, an agentic skill that assessed six review criteria, and Runabilly, which builds and tests each project in a disposable Docker container for safety. The AI only gathered evidence to present to the reviewers; humans made every decision regarding the acceptance of the abstracts. After the review period, we surveyed the reviewers to determine how useful they found the pre-review. Most of those who responded said they found it useful, but they preferred to check the AI's conclusions against their own, rather than accepting the AI results unquestioningly.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 1 of its 6 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2026.

Builds on

1 of 6 references.

References · 1

  1. 2026AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilotcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Red Teaming for Generative AI, Report on a Copyright-Focused Exercise Completed in an Academic Medical Center
  2. 2026Review the Code, Not the Story: A Vision and Protocol for Code-First Peer Review ↗
  3. 2026AI-to-AI Code Reviews of GitHub Pull Requests
  4. 2026From Industry Claims to Empirical Reality: An Empirical Study of Code Review Agents in Pull Requests
  5. 2026ARA: Agentic Reproducibility Assessment For Scalable Support Of Scientific Peer-Review
  6. 2026Habituation at the Gate: Rising Approval and Declining Scrutiny in Human Review of AI Agent Code
  7. 2026On the Footprints of Reviewer Bots Feedback on Agentic Pull Requests in OSS GitHub Repositories
  8. 2025Hidden Prompts in Manuscripts Exploit AI-Assisted Peer Review