Preventing 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 review tools. We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation: verification pressure, when claims outpace verification capacity, and signal shrinkage, when real improvements become hard to separate from noise. In a minimal model that mixes occasional high-fidelity checks with frequent proxy judgment, we derive an explicit coupling law and an incentive-collapse condition under which rational effort shifts from truth-seeking to proxy optimization, even when current decisions still appear reliable. These results motivate actions for tool builders and program chairs: deploy AI as an adversarial auditor that generates auditable verification artifacts and expands effective verification bandwidth, rather than as a score predictor that amplifies claim inflation.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
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 verifia…
Natural Language InferenceInformation RetrievalIdentity Theft in AI Conference Peer Review
We discuss newly uncovered cases of identity theft in the scientific peer-review process within artificial intelligence (AI) research, with broader implications for other academic procedures. We detail how dishonest rese…
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, …
Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences
Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requ…
InternReviewer & InternAdvocate: Objective Reward and Evaluation for Agentic Reinforcement Learning in Peer Review and Rebuttal
Generating professional scholarly content, such as peer reviews and rebuttals, requires an intricate synergy between domain reasoning and factual grounding. This work presents a comprehensive framework for the developmen…