Papers › Detecting AI-Generated Content in Academic Peer Reviews

Detecting AI-Generated Content in Academic Peer Reviews

30 Jan 2026arXiv:2602.00319added by Syntology

Siyuan Shen, Kai Wang

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

The growing availability of large language models (LLMs) has raised questions about their role in academic peer review. This study examines the temporal emergence of AI-generated content in peer reviews by applying a detection model trained on historical reviews to later review cycles at International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) and Nature Communications (NC). We observe minimal detection of AI-generated content before 2022, followed by a substantial increase through 2025, with approximately 20% of ICLR reviews and 12% of Nature Communications reviews classified as AI-generated in 2025. The most pronounced growth of AI-generated reviews in NC occurs between the third and fourth quarter of 2024. Together, these findings provide suggestive evidence of a rapidly increasing presence of AI-assisted content in peer review and highlight the need for further study of its implications for scholarly evaluation.

PaperPDF

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

syshen/AI_Review found in paper text by Syntologynot reachable when probed 2026-09-16 — repositories for recent papers often appear after camera-ready report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Syntology holds the repository link but has not harvested or run code from it.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.00319, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections