paper-with-me

Papers

What Can Natural Language Processing Do for Peer Review?

2024-05-10 · Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen, Nils Dycke, Alexander Goldberg, Tom Hope, Dirk Hovy, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Anne Lauscher, Kevin Leyton-Brown, Sheng Lu, Mausam, Margot Mieskes, Aurélie Névéol, Danish Pruthi, Lizhen Qu, Roy Schwartz, Noah A. Smith, Thamar Solorio, Jingyan Wang, Xiaodan Zhu, Anna Rogers, Nihar B. Shah, Iryna Gurevych

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2405.06563

Code (1)

OAfzal/nlp-for-peer-review 공식 구현

Tasks

Articles

Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론

SET Dynamic Sparse Training method where weight mask is updated randomly periodically

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

Systematic Review of Approaches to Improve Peer Assessment at Scale

2020-01-27 · Manikandan Ravikiran

Peer Assessment is a task of analysis and commenting on student's writing by peers, is core of all educational components both in campus and in MOOC's. However, with the sheer scale of MOOC's & its inherent personalised …

Knowledge TracingSurvey

Disparities in Peer Review Tone and the Role of Reviewer Anonymity

2025-07-19 · Maria Sahakyan, Bedoor AlShebli arxiv

The peer review process is often regarded as the gatekeeper of scientific integrity, yet increasing evidence suggests that it is not immune to bias. Although structural inequities in peer review have been widely debated,…

Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach

2022-11-07 · Jiayao Zhang, Hongming Zhang, Zhun Deng, Dan Roth

Double-blind peer review mechanism has become the skeleton of academic research across multiple disciplines including computer science, yet several studies have questioned the quality of peer reviews and raised concerns …

FairnessLanguage ModelingLanguage ModellingReview Generation

What Makes a Scientific Paper be Accepted for Publication?

2021-04-14 · EMNLP (CINLP) 2021 11 · Panagiotis Fytas, Georgios Rizos, Lucia Specia

Despite peer-reviewing being an essential component of academia since the 1600s, it has repeatedly received criticisms for lack of transparency and consistency. We posit that recent work in machine learning and explainab…

Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?

2021-01-30 · Weizhe Yuan, PengFei Liu, Graham Neubig

The rapid development of science and technology has been accompanied by an exponential growth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. At the same time, the review of each paper is a laborious process that must be carri…

Review Generation