REVIEW 4 cited by
A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study this important artifact. The dataset consists of 14.7K paper drafts and the corresponding accept/reject decisions in top-tier venues including ACL, NIPS and ICLR. The dataset also includes 10.7K textual peer reviews written by experts for a subset of the papers. We describe the data collection process and report interesting observed phenomena in the peer reviews. We also propose two novel NLP tasks based on this dataset and provide simple baseline models. In the first task, we show that simple models can predict whether a paper is accepted with up to 21% error reduction compared to the majority baseline. In the second task, we predict the numerical scores of review aspects and show that simple models can outperform the mean baseline for aspects with high variance such as 'originality' and 'impact'.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
REMOR: Automated Peer Review Generation with LLM Reasoning and Multi-Objective Reinforcement Learning
A reasoning LLM trained with GRPO on a multi-aspect reward (REMOR) produces peer reviews that score higher on that same reward than human reviews, but the evaluation is circular and partly in-sample.
-
Earlier Isn't Always Better: Sub-aspect Analysis on Corpus and System Biases in Summarization
Across nine corpora, summarization bias toward position, importance, and diversity differs by domain and by system type, with news showing strong position bias and academic papers showing balance.
-
How Far Are AI Scientists from Changing the World?
This survey proposes a four-level capability framework for AI Scientist systems and, using an AI reviewer, finds that current systems produce papers rated well below normal scientific standards.
-
OpenReview Should be Protected and Leveraged as a Community Asset for Research in the Era of Large Language Models
The paper advocates protecting and leveraging OpenReview's peer review corpus as a community asset for LLM-based review assistance, benchmarks, and alignment.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.