Nils Dycke

Dennis Zyska, Nils Dycke, Jan Buchmann et al.

Recent years have seen impressive progress in AI-assisted writing, yet the developments in AI-assisted reading are lacking. We propose inline commentary as a natural vehicle for AI-based reading assistance, and present CARE: the first open integrated platform for the study of inline commentary and reading. CARE facilitates data collection for inline commentaries in a commonplace collaborative reading environment, and provides a framework for enhancing reading with NLP-based assistance, such as text classification, generation or question answering. The extensible behavioral logging allows unique insights into the reading and commenting behavior, and flexible configuration makes the platform easy to deploy in new scenarios. To evaluate CARE in action, we apply the platform in a user study dedicated to scholarly peer review. CARE facilitates the data collection and study of inline commentary in NLP, extrinsic evaluation of NLP assistance, and application prototyping. We invite the community to explore and build upon the open source implementation of CARE.

Nils Dycke, Ilia Kuznetsov, Iryna Gurevych

Peer review constitutes a core component of scholarly publishing; yet it demands substantial expertise and training, and is susceptible to errors and biases. Various applications of NLP for peer reviewing assistance aim to support reviewers in this complex process, but the lack of clearly licensed datasets and multi-domain corpora prevent the systematic study of NLP for peer review. To remedy this, we introduce NLPeer -- the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. In addition to the new datasets of paper drafts, camera-ready versions and peer reviews from the NLP community, we establish a unified data representation and augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. We complement our resource with implementations and analysis of three reviewing assistance tasks, including a novel guided skimming task. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond. The data and code are publicly available.

Nils Dycke, Marina Sakharova, Nico Daheim et al.

Although it is generally agreed that AI-generated text poses a broad societal risk, there is no common understanding in the AI-generated text detection literature on what constitutes harmful use. Rather, existing datasets and approaches often define their own criteria and make their own assumptions, sometimes implicitly, and often only loosely related to real-world needs and applications. To address this gap, we here systematically define various notions of AI-generated text and their characteristics. To study these, we collect AITDNA - a new benchmark of human-machine co-constructed texts that is annotated with detailed genesis information, such as the entire edit and AI-interaction history. We benchmark various machine-generated text detectors and find that they often only perform well for specific notions but not as broad detectors. We release code and data publicly.

Nils Dycke, Matej Zečević, Ilia Kuznetsov et al.

Critical text assessment is at the core of many expert activities, such as fact-checking, peer review, and essay grading. Yet, existing work treats critical text assessment as a black box problem, limiting interpretability and human-AI collaboration. To close this gap, we introduce Structured Reasoning In Critical Text Assessment (STRICTA), a novel specification framework to model text assessment as an explicit, step-wise reasoning process. STRICTA breaks down the assessment into a graph of interconnected reasoning steps drawing on causality theory (Pearl, 1995). This graph is populated based on expert interaction data and used to study the assessment process and facilitate human-AI collaboration. We formally define STRICTA and apply it in a study on biomedical paper assessment, resulting in a dataset of over 4000 reasoning steps from roughly 40 biomedical experts on more than 20 papers. We use this dataset to empirically study expert reasoning in critical text assessment, and investigate if LLMs are able to imitate and support experts within these workflows. The resulting tools and datasets pave the way for studying collaborative expert-AI reasoning in text assessment, in peer review and beyond.

Sukannya Purkayastha, Nils Dycke, Anne Lauscher et al.

Meta-reviewing is a pivotal stage in the peer-review process, serving as the final step in determining whether a paper is recommended for acceptance. Prior research on meta-reviewing has treated this as a summarization problem over review reports. However, complementary to this perspective, meta-reviewing is a decision-making process that requires weighing reviewer arguments and placing them within a broader context. Prior research has demonstrated that decision-makers can be effectively assisted in such scenarios via dialogue agents. In line with this framing, we explore the practical challenges for realizing dialog agents that can effectively assist meta-reviewers. Concretely, we first address the issue of data scarcity for training dialogue agents by generating synthetic data using Large Language Models (LLMs) based on a self-refinement strategy to improve the relevance of these dialogues to expert domains. Our experiments demonstrate that this method produces higher-quality synthetic data and can serve as a valuable resource towards training meta-reviewing assistants. Subsequently, we utilize this data to train dialogue agents tailored for meta-reviewing and find that these agents outperform \emph{off-the-shelf} LLM-based assistants for this task. Finally, we apply our agents in real-world meta-reviewing scenarios and confirm their effectiveness in enhancing the efficiency of meta-reviewing.\footnote{Code and Data: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2025-meta-review-as-dialog

Ilia Kuznetsov, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Koen Dercksen et al.

The number of scientific articles produced every year is growing rapidly. Providing quality control over them is crucial for scientists and, ultimately, for the public good. In modern science, this process is largely delegated to peer review -- a distributed procedure in which each submission is evaluated by several independent experts in the field. Peer review is widely used, yet it is hard, time-consuming, and prone to error. Since the artifacts involved in peer review -- manuscripts, reviews, discussions -- are largely text-based, Natural Language Processing has great potential to improve reviewing. As the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has enabled NLP assistance for many new tasks, the discussion on machine-assisted peer review is picking up the pace. Yet, where exactly is help needed, where can NLP help, and where should it stand aside? The goal of our paper is to provide a foundation for the future efforts in NLP for peer-reviewing assistance. We discuss peer review as a general process, exemplified by reviewing at AI conferences. We detail each step of the process from manuscript submission to camera-ready revision, and discuss the associated challenges and opportunities for NLP assistance, illustrated by existing work. We then turn to the big challenges in NLP for peer review as a whole, including data acquisition and licensing, operationalization and experimentation, and ethical issues. To help consolidate community efforts, we create a companion repository that aggregates key datasets pertaining to peer review. Finally, we issue a detailed call for action for the scientific community, NLP and AI researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies to help bring the research in NLP for peer review forward. We hope that our work will help set the agenda for research in machine-assisted scientific quality control in the age of AI, within the NLP community and beyond.

Nils Dycke, Iryna Gurevych

Large Language Models (LLMs) have great potential to accelerate and support scholarly peer review and are increasingly used as fully automatic review generators (ARGs). However, potential biases and systematic errors may pose significant risks to scientific integrity; understanding the specific capabilities and limitations of state-of-the-art ARGs is essential. We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic. This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims. We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions. Testing a range of ARG approaches, we find that, contrary to expectation, flaws in research logic have no significant effect on their output reviews. Based on our findings, we derive three actionable recommendations for future work and release our counterfactual dataset and evaluation framework publicly.

Nils Dycke, Ilia Kuznetsov, Iryna Gurevych

The shift towards publicly available text sources has enabled language processing at unprecedented scale, yet leaves under-serviced the domains where public and openly licensed data is scarce. Proactively collecting text data for research is a viable strategy to address this scarcity, but lacks systematic methodology taking into account the many ethical, legal and confidentiality-related aspects of data collection. Our work presents a case study on proactive data collection in peer review -- a challenging and under-resourced NLP domain. We outline ethical and legal desiderata for proactive data collection and introduce "Yes-Yes-Yes", the first donation-based peer reviewing data collection workflow that meets these requirements. We report on the implementation of Yes-Yes-Yes at ACL Rolling Review and empirically study the implications of proactive data collection for the dataset size and the biases induced by the donation behavior on the peer reviewing platform.

Nils Dycke, Edwin Simpson, Ilia Kuznetsov et al.

Peer review is the primary means of quality control in academia; as an outcome of a peer review process, program and area chairs make acceptance decisions for each paper based on the review reports and scores they received. Quality of scientific work is multi-faceted; coupled with the subjectivity of reviewing, this makes final decision making difficult and time-consuming. To support this final step of peer review, we formalize it as a paper ranking problem. We introduce a novel, multi-faceted generic evaluation framework for ranking submissions based on peer reviews that takes into account effectiveness, efficiency and fairness. We propose a preference learning perspective on the task that considers both review texts and scores to alleviate the inevitable bias and noise in reviews. Our experiments on peer review data from the ACL 2018 conference demonstrate the superiority of our preference-learning-based approach over baselines and prior work, while highlighting the importance of using both review texts and scores to rank submissions.