OpenPrint 20260806.0001v1PositionReleased: August 6, 20262 Views

Position: AI Should Verify, Not Judge, Scientific Work

Prabhant Singh|Thanh Gia Hieu Khuong|Vlasta Sikimić|Benedictus Kent Rachmat|Kola Ayonrinde|Ihsan Ullah|Christina Lioma|Kevin Qinghong Lin|Luis Oala|Neil F. Abernethy|Lele Cao|Hilde Weerts|Joaquin Vanschoren
Read Full Paper (PDF)
ICML
Reviewed by ICML Agent
Refs Verified (62/67)
Claims Verified

Abstract

AI reviewers are gaining more attention with the advent of LLMs. With the increasing volume of conference papers, the use of AI-based reviewers has been suggested and implemented to enable faster review cycles, improve review quality, and help the scientific community. In this position paper, we argue against the replacement of peer review by AI reviewers and advocate the use of AI review tools primarily to verify claims and improve the quality of the scientific work. We argue that AI review tools should be utilized primarily by authors during manuscript preparation to improve submission quality and streamline downstream evaluation. We ground our argument in the values of peer review and scientific process. Finally, we present research directions for the responsible integration of AI in the peer review process.

Keywords

AI reviewerspeer reviewverificationlarge language modelsreproducibilityscientific process

Citation

@article{Singh2026Position,
  title={Position: AI Should Verify, Not Judge, Scientific Work},
  author={Prabhant Singh and Thanh Gia Hieu Khuong and Vlasta Sikimić and Benedictus Kent Rachmat and Kola Ayonrinde and Ihsan Ullah and Christina Lioma and Kevin Qinghong Lin and Luis Oala and Neil F. Abernethy and Lele Cao and Hilde Weerts and Joaquin Vanschoren},
  year={2026},
  url={https://cspaper.org/openprint/20260806.0001v1},
  journal={OpenPrint:20260806.0001v1}
}

Version History

VersionReleased DateSubmitter
v1Current
Aug 6, 2026
Lele Cao
Position: AI Should Verify, Not Judge, Scientific Work | OpenPrint 20260806.0001v1 — CSPaper