REVIEW 11 cited by
Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions
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
Peer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.
Forward citations
Cited by 11 Pith papers
-
ReviewGrounder: Improving Review Substantiveness with Rubric-Guided, Tool-Integrated Agents
ReviewGrounder decomposes review generation into rubric-guided drafting and tool-integrated grounding stages, outperforming larger baseline models on a new benchmark measuring alignment with human judgments and review...
-
Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review
Introduces Re3Align dataset of review-response-revision triplets, REspGen author-in-the-loop generation framework, and REspEval multi-metric suite for controllable peer-review response generation.
-
Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review
An author-in-the-loop framework with a new 15k review-response-revision dataset and 20+ metrics shows that supplying author revision signals improves LLM-generated peer-review rebuttals.
-
PRAIB: Peer Review AI Benchmark of Behaviour of LLM-Assisted Reviewing
PRAIB reveals LLM reviews are less variable, positively biased, overconfident, longer, and overlook atomic weaknesses noted by humans compared to real reviewer feedback.
-
GraphReview: Scientific Paper Evaluation via LLM-Based Graph Message Passing
GraphReview models paper evaluation as LLM-driven message passing on a semantic paper graph that links intrinsic quality, contemporaneous papers, and prior work, then applies Personalized PageRank for ranking and revi...
-
EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation
EGTR-Review distills a multi-agent evidence-grounded review generator into an efficient student model that outperforms baselines on quality, grounding, and traceability while using fewer tokens.
-
SafeReview: Defending LLM-based Review Systems Against Adversarial Hidden Prompts
SafeReview trains a Generator to create adversarial prompts and a Defender to detect them via co-evolution with an IR-GAN-inspired loss, claiming better resilience than static defenses for LLM-based peer review.
-
Impact of large language models on peer review opinions from a fine-grained perspective: Evidence from top conference proceedings in AI
Peer review reports in AI conferences have grown longer and more standardized after LLMs, with increased emphasis on surface-level clarity and summaries at the expense of deeper critiques on originality and replicability.
-
LLM-Based Scientific Peer Review: Methods, Benchmarks, and Reliability Challenges
A survey synthesizing LLM methods for peer review critique generation and score prediction, including taxonomies, benchmark limitations, domain biases, and robustness risks such as prompt injection.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
AI can generate research artifacts faster than it can verify them, so across all eight lifecycle stages the credible deployment mode is human-governed collaboration rather than full autonomy.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.