ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detection via LLM-Driven Data Augmentation
Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. While recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine academic integrity. To address this issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews through a four-stage LLM-driven framework: data collection from ICLR and NeurIPS on OpenReview, GPT-4.1 annotation with human validation, synthetic data augmentation yielding 6,634 papers with 24,657 real and 46,438 synthetic reviews, and fine-tuning of encoder-based models and open-source LLMs. Feature analysis reveals that deficient reviews exhibit lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and more negative sentiment than sufficient reviews. AI-generated text detection shows dramatic increases in AI-authored reviews since ChatGPT's emergence. Mixed training with synthetic and real data substantially improves detection performance - for example, Qwen 3-8B achieves recall of 0.6653 and F1 of 0.7073, up from 0.5499 and 0.5606 respectively. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review. Code, prompts, and data are available at https://github.com/haoxuan-unt2024/ReviewGuard
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
Data AugmentationText DetectionSimilar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
ReviewGuard: Aligning LLM-Assisted Peer Review with Long-Term Scientific Impact
Peer review is central to scientific quality control, yet it can undervalue papers that later achieve substantial citation impact. While frontier large language models have shown promise in automating aspects of peer rev…
Reinforcement LearningTADDLE: A Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews
LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judg…
Multi-Label ClassificationPeer Review as A Multi-Turn and Long-Context Dialogue with Role-Based Interactions
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limite…
Review GenerationPaper Quality Assessment based on Individual Wisdom Metrics from Open Peer Review
This study proposes a data-driven framework for enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of scientific peer review through an open, bottom-up process that estimates reviewer quality. Traditional closed peer review systems, …
FairnessIs 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 Detection