Can We Automate Scientific Reviewing?

by   Weizhe Yuan, et al.

The rapid development of science and technology has been accompanied by an exponential growth in peer-reviewed scientific publications. At the same time, the review of each paper is a laborious process that must be carried out by subject matter experts. Thus, providing high-quality reviews of this growing number of papers is a significant challenge. In this work, we ask the question "can we automate scientific reviewing?", discussing the possibility of using state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models to generate first-pass peer reviews for scientific papers. Arguably the most difficult part of this is defining what a "good" review is in the first place, so we first discuss possible evaluation measures for such reviews. We then collect a dataset of papers in the machine learning domain, annotate them with different aspects of content covered in each review, and train targeted summarization models that take in papers to generate reviews. Comprehensive experimental results show that system-generated reviews tend to touch upon more aspects of the paper than human-written reviews, but the generated text can suffer from lower constructiveness for all aspects except the explanation of the core ideas of the papers, which are largely factually correct. We finally summarize eight challenges in the pursuit of a good review generation system together with potential solutions, which, hopefully, will inspire more future research on this subject. We make all code, and the dataset publicly available:, as well as a ReviewAdvisor system:


page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4


SciReviewGen: A Large-scale Dataset for Automatic Literature Review Generation

Automatic literature review generation is one of the most challenging ta...

A Dataset of Peer Reviews (PeerRead): Collection, Insights and NLP Applications

Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing proce...

Argument Mining for Understanding Peer Reviews

Peer-review plays a critical role in the scientific writing and publicat...

Reviewer assignment problem: A scoping review

Peer review is an integral component of scientific research. The quality...

A Novice-Reviewer Experiment to Address Scarcity of Qualified Reviewers in Large Conferences

Conference peer review constitutes a human-computation process whose imp...

Generating Summaries for Scientific Paper Review

The review process is essential to ensure the quality of publications. R...

COMPARE: A Taxonomy and Dataset of Comparison Discussions in Peer Reviews

Comparing research papers is a conventional method to demonstrate progre...

Please sign up or login with your details

Forgot password? Click here to reset