On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists
Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Computation and Language
arXiv:2605.20668 (cs)
[Submitted on 20 May 2026]
Title:On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists
Authors:Seungone Kim, Dongkeun Yoon, Kiril Gashteovski, Juyoung Suk, Jinheon Baek, Pranjal Aggarwal, Ian Wu, Viktor Zaverkin, Spase Petkoski, Daniel R. Schrider, Ilija Dukovski, Francesco Santini, Biljana Mitreska, Yong Jeong, Kyeongha Kwon, Young Min Sim, Dragana Manasova, Arthur Porto, Biljana Mojsoska, Makoto Takamoto, Marko Shuntov, Ruoqi Liu, Hyunjoo Jenny Lee, Niyazi Ulas Dinç, Yehhyun Jo, Sunkyu Han, Chungwoo Lee, Huishan Li, Esther H. R. Tsai, Ergun Simsek, Khushboo Shafi, Yeonseung Chung, Jihye Park, Aleksandar Shulevski, Henrik Christiansen, Yoosang Son, Elly Knight, Amanda Montoya, Jeongyoun Ahn, Christian Langkammer, Heera Moon, Changwon Yoon, Nikola Stikov, Mooseok Jang, Edward Choi, Junhan Kim, Yeon Sik Jung, Woo Youn Kim, Jae Kyoung Kim, Ishraq Md Anjum, Hyun Uk Kim, Drew Bridges, Carolin Lawrence, Xiang Yue, Alice Oh, Akari Asai, Sean Welleck, Graham Neubig
View a PDF of the paper titled On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists, by Seungone Kim and 57 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.
| Comments: | Work in progress |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.20668 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2605.20668v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.20668
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists, by Seungone Kim and 57 other authors
Current browse context:
cs.CL
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language
-
Shiny Stories, Hidden Struggles: Investigating the Representation of Disability Through the Lens of LLMs
May 21
-
Leveraging Large Language Models for Sentiment Analysis: Multi-Modal Analysis of Decentraland's MANA Token
May 21
-
Improving Quantized Model Performance in Qualitative Analysis with Multi-Pass Prompt Verification
May 21
-
Parallel LLM Reasoning for Bias-Resilient, Robust Conceptual Abstraction
May 21
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.