Peer review is central to scientific decision-making, yet it is rarely evaluated or audited at scale. Growing submission volumes and the increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in drafting reviews have introduced new challenges for transparency, accountability, and quality control. Today, peer reviews are often produced through hybrid human--AI workflows, where a reviewer may develop the core evaluative ideas while using an LLM to refine wording, restructure arguments, or improve fluency. This shift raises new questions beyond authorship detection alone: Are reviews constructive? Are reviewer claims grounded in the submitted paper? How can we quantify collaboration between human reasoning and AI-assisted writing, and distinguish whether the intellectual contribution or the surface text originates from humans or models?

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect and API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect, accompanied by a video tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem (human vs. AI) without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. To address this, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task, their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Rather than relying on this binary, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

While large language models (LLMs) have been widely studied in scholarly workflows, e.g., for citation recommendation and literature summarization and more, their role in supporting research integrity remains underexplored. In this talk, we share our experience building and deploying two real-world systems that audit peer reviews and verify their factual grounding at scale. We evaluate the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in two key tasks: (1) assessing review quality along dimensions like specificity and tone, and (2) verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by the submitted paper. Using expert-annotated benchmarks, we compare static metrics, ML baselines, zero-shot LLMs, and fine-tuned models to assess alignment with human judgment. The talk will highlight methodological choices, deployment lessons, and empirical insights into where LLMs succeed and where hybrid approaches with interpretable ML and retrieval perform more reliably. We conclude with reflections on what infrastructure is needed to make use LLMs as a robust foundation for research integrity at scale.

Peer review is foundational to academic publishing, yet the quality of reviews remains difficult to assess at scale due to subjectivity, inconsistency, and the lack of standardized evaluation mechanisms. This talk presents our experience developing and deploying a scalable framework for assessing review quality in operational settings. We combine two complementary approaches: interpretable machine learning models built on quantifiable review- and reviewer-level features, and the application of large language models (LLMs), including Qwen, Phi, and GPT-4o, in zero- and few-shot configurations for textual quality evaluation. We also explore the fine-tuning of LLMs on expert-annotated datasets to examine their upper-bound capabilities. To benchmark these methods, we constructed a dataset of over 700 paper-review pairs labeled by domain experts across multiple quality dimensions. Our findings demonstrate that transparent, feature-based models consistently outperform LLMs in reliability and generalization, particularly when evaluating conceptual depth and argumentative structure. The talk will highlight key engineering choices, deployment challenges, and broader implications for integrating automated review evaluation into scholarly workflows.

The quality of peer review plays a critical role in scientific publishing, yet remains poorly understood and challenging to evaluate at scale. In this work, we introduce RottenReviews, a benchmark designed to facilitate systematic assessment of review quality. RottenReviews comprises over 15,000 submissions from four distinct academic venues enriched with over 9,000 reviewer scholarly profiles and paper metadata. We define and compute a diverse set of quantifiable review-dependent and reviewer-dependent metrics, and compare them against structured assessments from large language models (LLMs) and expert human annotations. Our human-annotated subset includes over 700 paper-review pairs labeled across 13 explainable and conceptual dimensions of review quality. Our empirical findings reveal that LLMs, both zero-shot and fine-tuned, exhibit limited alignment with human expert evaluations of peer review quality. Surprisingly, simple interpretable models trained on quantifiable features outperform fine-tuned LLMs in predicting overall review quality. We publicly release all data, code, and models at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/RottenReviews to support further research in this area.