paper-with-me

Papers

Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews

2023-11-20 · Yanzhu Guo, Guokan Shang, Virgile Rennard, Michalis Vazirgiannis, Chloé Clavel

With the increasing amount of problematic peer reviews in top AI conferences, the community is urgently in need of automatic quality control measures. In this paper, we restrict our attention to substantiation -- one popular quality aspect indicating whether the claims in a review are sufficiently supported by evidence -- and provide a solution automatizing this evaluation process. To achieve this goal, we first formulate the problem as claim-evidence pair extraction in scientific peer reviews, and collect SubstanReview, the first annotated dataset for this task. SubstanReview consists of 550 reviews from NLP conferences annotated by domain experts. On the basis of this dataset, we train an argument mining system to automatically analyze the level of substantiation in peer reviews. We also perform data analysis on the SubstanReview dataset to obtain meaningful insights on peer reviewing quality in NLP conferences over recent years.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2311.11967

Code (1)

yanzhuguo/substanreview 공식 구현

Tasks

Argument Mining

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

WarrantScore: Modeling Warrants between Claims and Evidence for Substantiation Evaluation in Peer Reviews

2026-01-24 · Kiyotada Mori, Shohei Tanaka, Tosho Hirasawa, Tadashi Kozuno 외 arxiv

The scientific peer-review process is facing a shortage of human resources due to the rapid growth in the number of submitted papers. The use of language models to reduce the human cost of peer review has been actively e…

Automated Focused Feedback Generation for Scientific Writing Assistance

2024-05-30 · Eric Chamoun, Michael Schlichktrull, Andreas Vlachos

Scientific writing is a challenging task, particularly for novice researchers who often rely on feedback from experienced peers. Recent work has primarily focused on improving surface form and style rather than manuscrip…

Reading ComprehensionSpecificity

Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable

2026-03-20 · Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan 외 arxiv

A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews. But…

PeerQA: A Scientific Question Answering Dataset from Peer Reviews

2025-02-19 · Tim Baumgärtner, Ted Briscoe, Iryna Gurevych

We present PeerQA, a real-world, scientific, document-level Question Answering (QA) dataset. PeerQA questions have been sourced from peer reviews, which contain questions that reviewers raised while thoroughly examining …

answerability predictionAnswer GenerationArticlesPassage Retrieval+5

Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviews

2019-03-25 · NAACL 2019 6 · Xinyu Hua, Mitko Nikolov, Nikhil Badugu, Lu Wang

Peer-review plays a critical role in the scientific writing and publication ecosystem. To assess the efficiency and efficacy of the reviewing process, one essential element is to understand and evaluate the reviews thems…

Argument Mining