Skip to content
← Back to explorer

ReviewScore: Misinformed Peer Review Detection with Large Language Models

Hyun Ryu, Doohyuk Jang, Hyemin S. Lee, Joonhyun Jeong, Gyeongman Kim, Donghyeon Cho, Gyouk Chu, Minyeong Hwang, Hyeongwon Jang, Changhun Kim, Haechan Kim, Jina Kim, Joowon Kim, Yoonjeon Kim, Kwanhyung Lee, Chanjae Park, Heecheol Yun, Gregor Betz, Eunho Yang · Sep 25, 2025 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes. To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper. We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed. To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness. We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation. Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs. The models show F1 scores of 0.4--0.5 and kappa scores of 0.3--0.4, indicating moderate agreement but also suggesting that fully automating the evaluation remains challenging. A thorough disagreement analysis reveals that most errors are due to models' incorrect reasoning. We also prove that evaluating premise-level factuality shows significantly higher agreements than evaluating weakness-level factuality.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes."

Quality Controls

partial

Inter Annotator Agreement Reported

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes."

Reported Metrics

partial

F1, Kappa, Agreement

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Then, we measure human-model agreements on ReviewScore using eight current state-of-the-art LLMs."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Domain Experts
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1kappaagreement

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Peer review serves as a backbone of academic research, but in most AI conferences, the review quality is degrading as the number of submissions explodes.
  • To reliably detect low-quality reviews, we define misinformed review points as either "weaknesses" in a review that contain incorrect premises, or "questions" in a review that can be already answered by the paper.
  • We verify that 15.2% of weaknesses and 26.4% of questions are misinformed and introduce ReviewScore indicating if a review point is misinformed.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • To evaluate the factuality of each premise of weaknesses, we propose an automated engine that reconstructs every explicit and implicit premise from a weakness.
  • We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation.
  • The models show F1 scores of 0.4--0.5 and kappa scores of 0.3--0.4, indicating moderate agreement but also suggesting that fully automating the evaluation remains challenging.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We build a human expert-annotated ReviewScore dataset to check the ability of LLMs to automate ReviewScore evaluation.
  • The models show F1 scores of 0.4--0.5 and kappa scores of 0.3--0.4, indicating moderate agreement but also suggesting that fully automating the evaluation remains challenging.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Pass: Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, kappa, agreement

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Create Account & Post a Job
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
Learn About Managed Service
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.
Join Now