Automated Peer Reviewing in Paper SEA: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis
In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated scientific reviewing, their generated contents are often generic or partial. To address the issues above, we introduce an automated paper reviewing framework SEA. It comprises of three modules: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis, which are represented by models SEA-S, SEA-E, and SEA-A, respectively. Initially, SEA-S distills data standardization capabilities of GPT-4 for integrating multiple reviews for a paper. Then, SEA-E utilizes standardized data for fine-tuning, enabling it to generate constructive reviews. Finally, SEA-A introduces a new evaluation metric called mismatch score to assess the consistency between paper contents and reviews. Moreover, we design a self-correction strategy to enhance the consistency. Extensive experimental results on datasets collected from eight venues show that SEA can generate valuable insights for authors to improve their papers.
Code (1)
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Unveiling the Sentinels: Assessing AI Performance in Cybersecurity Peer Review
Peer review is the method employed by the scientific community for evaluating research advancements. In the field of cybersecurity, the practice of double-blind peer review is the de-facto standard. This paper touches on…
PaperAudit-Bench: Benchmarking Error Detection in Research Papers for Critical Automated Peer Review
Large language models can generate fluent peer reviews, yet their assessments often lack sufficient critical rigor when substantive issues are subtle and distributed across a paper. In this paper, we introduce PaperAudit…
Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review
We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review. Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the pee…
Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework
Large Language Models (LLMs) have great potential to accelerate and support scholarly peer review and are increasingly used as fully automatic review generators (ARGs). However, potential biases and systematic errors may…
Automated scholarly paper review: Concepts, technologies, and challenges
Peer review is a widely accepted mechanism for research evaluation, playing a pivotal role in academic publishing. However, criticisms have long been leveled at this mechanism, mostly because of its poor efficiency and l…
Logical Reasoning