Reviewing Scientific Papers for Critical Problems With Reasoning LLMs: Baseline Approaches and Automatic Evaluation
Tianmai M. Zhang, Neil F. Abernethy · May 28, 2025 · Citations: 0
How to use this page
Moderate trustUse this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Evidence quality
Moderate
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Abstract
Recent advancements in large language models have sparked interest in utilizing them to aid the peer review process of scientific publication amid the peer review crisis. However, having AI models generate full reviews in the same way as human reviewers risks exacerbating the irresponsible use of LLM-generated reviews and instigating intentional manipulation. As an alternative, we propose adopting LLMs as manuscript quality checkers. We introduce several baseline approaches and an extendable automatic evaluation framework using top reasoning LLMs as judges to tackle the difficulty of recruiting domain experts for manual evaluation. Utilizing papers withdrawn from arXiv, we validated our proposed methods with several leading reasoning LLMs available in May-June 2025 and assessed their performance and API costs for identifying critical errors and unsoundness problems in scientific papers. o3 exhibited the best problem identification performance among all models at a modest cost. This paper provides insights into document-based scientific understanding/reasoning and lays a foundation for future applications. Our dataset, code, and model outputs are publicly available.