Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future
Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different stages of this pipeline. In this survey, we synthesize techniques for (i) peer review generation, including fine-tuning strategies, agent-based systems, RL-based methods, and emerging paradigms to enhance generation; (ii) after-review tasks including rebuttals
Record details
Published: 30 April 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Agents & autonomy
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
A Collective Variational Principle Unifying Bayesian Inference, Game Theory, and Thermodynamics
arXiv · 30 April 2026
D3-Gym: Constructing Real-World Verifiable Environments for Data-Driven Discovery
arXiv · 30 April 2026
Agent-Agnostic Evaluation of SQL Accuracy in Production Text-to-SQL Systems
arXiv · 30 April 2026
Crab: A Semantics-Aware Checkpoint/Restore Runtime for Agent Sandboxes
arXiv · 30 April 2026
AgentEconomist: An End-to-end Agentic System Translating Economic Intuitions into Executable Computational Experiments
arXiv · 30 April 2026
Intern-Atlas: A Methodological Evolution Graph as Research Infrastructure for AI Scientists
arXiv · 30 April 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (30 April 2026), “Can AI Be a Good Peer Reviewer? A Survey of Peer Review Process, Evaluation, and the Future,” evidence record 5160, https://ethics.ai/record/5160 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.