Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews
Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Natural Language InferenceInformation RetrievalSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Automatic Analysis of Substantiation in Scientific Peer Reviews
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 pop…
Argument MiningWarrantScore: Modeling Warrants between Claims and Evidence for Substantiation Evaluation in Peer Reviews
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…
CLAIMCHECK: How Grounded are LLM Critiques of Scientific Papers?
A core part of scientific peer review involves providing expert critiques that directly assess the scientific claims a paper makes. While it is now possible to automatically generate plausible (if generic) reviews, ensur…
BenchmarkingSpecificityPreventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI
This paper argues that AI-assisted peer review should be verification-first rather than review-mimicking. We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth, as the right objective for…
A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications
Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study t…