GPT vs Human for Scientific Reviews: A Dual Source Review on Applications of ChatGPT in Science
The new polymath Large Language Models (LLMs) can speed-up greatly scientific reviews, possibly using more unbiased quantitative metrics, facilitating cross-disciplinary connections, and identifying emerging trends and research gaps by analyzing large volumes of data. However, at the present time, they lack the required deep understanding of complex methodologies, they have difficulty in evaluating innovative claims, and they are unable to assess ethical issues and conflicts of interest. Herein, we consider 13 GPT-related papers across different scientific domains, reviewed by a human reviewer and SciSpace, a large language model, with the reviews evaluated by three distinct types of evaluators, namely GPT-3.5, a crowd panel, and GPT-4. We found that 50% of SciSpace's responses to objective questions align with those of a human reviewer, with GPT-4 (informed evaluator) often rating the human reviewer higher in accuracy, and SciSpace higher in structure, clarity, and completeness. In subjective questions, the uninformed evaluators (GPT-3.5 and crowd panel) showed varying preferences between SciSpace and human responses, with the crowd panel showing a preference for the human responses. However, GPT-4 rated them equally in accuracy and structure but favored SciSpace for completeness.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
When AI Reviews Train AI Reviewers: Scientific-Judgment Collapse and Mitigation
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, both as automated reviewers and as assistants to human reviewers. As model-generated reviews enter public data and future training corpora, …
Is Your Paper Being Reviewed by an LLM? A New Benchmark Dataset and Approach for Detecting AI Text in Peer Review
Peer review is a critical process for ensuring the integrity of published scientific research. Confidence in this process is predicated on the assumption that experts in the relevant domain give careful consideration to …
BenchmarkingText DetectionOpenReviewer: A Specialized Large Language Model for Generating Critical Scientific Paper Reviews
We present OpenReviewer, an open-source system for generating high-quality peer reviews of machine learning and AI conference papers. At its core is Llama-OpenReviewer-8B, an 8B parameter language model specifically fine…
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelPre-review to Peer review: Pitfalls of Automating Reviews using Large Language Models
Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as \textit{pre-review} agents, if not as fully autonomous \textit{peer-review} agents. W…
Policies Permitting LLM Use for Polishing Peer Reviews Are Currently Not Enforceable
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…