PeerPrism: Peer Evaluation Expertise vs Review-writing AI
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Text DetectionSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Author-in-the-Loop Response Generation and Evaluation: Integrating Author Expertise and Intent in Responses to Peer Review
Author response (rebuttal) writing is a critical stage of scientific peer review that demands substantial author effort. In practice, authors possess domain expertise, author-only information, and response strategies - c…
Response GenerationEnhancing Peer Review in Astronomy: A Machine Learning and Optimization Approach to Reviewer Assignments for ALMA
The increasing volume of papers and proposals that undergo peer review emphasizes the pressing need for greater automation to effectively manage the growing scale. In this study, we present the deployment and evaluation …
AstronomyStrategyproofing Peer Assessment via Partitioning: The Price in Terms of Evaluators' Expertise
Strategic behavior is a fundamental problem in a variety of real-world applications that require some form of peer assessment, such as peer grading of homeworks, grant proposal review, conference peer review of scientifi…
The Great AI Witch Hunt: Reviewers Perception and (Mis)Conception of Generative AI in Research Writing
Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, …
DiversityInformativenessLLM Review: Enhancing Creative Writing via Blind Peer Review Feedback
Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with creative generation, and multi-agent frameworks that improve reasoning through interaction can paradoxically hinder creativity by inducing content homogenization. We intro…