Re2: A Consistency-ensured Dataset for Full-stage Peer Review and Multi-turn Rebuttal Discussions

Daoze Zhang, Zhijian Bao, Sihang Du, Zhiyi Zhao, Kuangling Zhang, Dezheng Bao, Yang Yang · May 12, 2025 · Citations: 0

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

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality. Besides the growing research popularity, another key factor in this overload is the repeated resubmission of substandard manuscripts, largely due to the lack of effective tools for authors to self-evaluate their work before submission. Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in assisting both authors and reviewers, and their performance is fundamentally limited by the quality of the peer review data. However, existing peer review datasets face three major limitations: (1) limited data diversity, (2) inconsistent and low-quality data due to the use of revised rather than initial submissions, and (3) insufficient support for tasks involving rebuttal and reviewer-author interactions. To address these challenges, we introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re^2, which comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21 workshops on OpenReview. Moreover, the rebuttal and discussion stage is framed as a multi-turn conversation paradigm to support both traditional static review tasks and dynamic interactive LLM assistants, providing more practical guidance for authors to refine their manuscripts and helping alleviate the growing review burden. Our data and code are available in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ReviewBench_anon/.

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.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

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

Background context only.

Main weakness

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

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

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 is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

Human Feedback Details

Uses human feedback: No
Feedback types: None
Rater population: Not reported
Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

Evaluation modes:
Agentic eval: None
Quality controls: Not 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

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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

Key Takeaways

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality.
Besides the growing research popularity, another key factor in this overload is the repeated resubmission of substandard manuscripts, largely due to the lack of effective tools for authors to self-evaluate their work before submission.
Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in assisting both authors and reviewers, and their performance is fundamentally limited by the quality of the peer review data.

Researcher Actions

Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
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.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

To address these challenges, we introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re^2, which comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21…

Why It Matters For Eval

Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Gap: Quality control reporting appears

No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Gap: Metric reporting is present

No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.

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