| Could AI still be a useful tool if the reviewer performs a manual review first and then queries the LLM with: 1) Here is a new academic paper. Point out any inconsistencies, gaps or flaws in the research, and any contradictions with previous research in the field. 2) Here is a new academic paper and a journal submission policy. Does the paper meet the journal submission policy? 3) Here is a new academic paper, the review policy of the journal and a review of the paper. Does the review appear to have been conducted correctly. 4) Here is a new academic paper and a review of it. Has the review missed anything? With the above, the reviewer could review the paper themselves, and then get the AI agent to proof read or double check everything, treating it like an editor / reviewer / secretary / grad student that they had asked to read the material. As long as the AI output was treated as potentially flawed feedback or a prompt from a third party to look deeper into something then that seems fine... I'm surprised we are still using in-band signalling after the captain crunch whistle / blue-boxes have been around for that long |
you are not allowed to share the unpublished results with anyone or any LLM, period. This is literally in every review policy (e.g. https://neurips.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers)