REVIEW 6 cited by
Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review
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
read the original abstract
Scholarly peer review is a cornerstone of scientific advancement, but the system is under strain due to increasing manuscript submissions and the labor-intensive nature of the process. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review, with promising results such as substantial overlaps between LLM- and human-generated reviews. However, the unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system. In this study, we comprehensively analyze the vulnerabilities of LLM-generated reviews by focusing on manipulation and inherent flaws. Our experiments show that injecting covert deliberate content into manuscripts allows authors to explicitly manipulate LLM reviews, leading to inflated ratings and reduced alignment with human reviews. In a simulation, we find that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings. Implicit manipulation, where authors strategically highlight minor limitations in their papers, further demonstrates LLMs' susceptibility compared to human reviewers, with a 4.5 times higher consistency with disclosed limitations. Additionally, LLMs exhibit inherent flaws, such as potentially assigning higher ratings to incomplete papers compared to full papers and favoring well-known authors in single-blind review process. These findings highlight the risks of over-reliance on LLMs in peer review, underscoring that we are not yet ready for widespread adoption and emphasizing the need for robust safeguards.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
LLM paper reviewers show excessive agreement and are trivially gamed by zero-shot "paper laundering" rewrites, so they should not automate acceptance-relevant judgment without a science of evaluation.
-
BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers?
An LLM agent generating fabricated papers without experiments gets acceptance-level scores from LLM reviewers up to 82% of the time, and simple integrity-checking mitigations barely beat random.
-
From peer review nuances to best practices
Paper version, score version, and input format vary across peer-review datasets and measurably affect LLM-based review experiments, so they should be reported explicitly.
-
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.
-
When Your Reviewer is an LLM: Biases, Divergence, and Prompt Injection Risks in Peer Review
GPT-5-mini gives weaker papers systematically higher scores than human reviewers, and hidden field-specific prompts in PDFs can force it to assign perfect scores or suppress weaknesses.
-
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.