Title: LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet?
Primary area: alignment, fairness, safety, privacy, and societal considerations
Keywords: AI in research, AI in review, systematic bias, fairness

Abstract: The rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs) has inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow, potentially reshaping how research is practiced and reviewed. 
While previous studies highlight the potential of LLMs in supporting research and peer review, their dual roles in the academic workflow and the complex interplay between research and review bring new risks that remain largely underexplored. 
In this study, we focus on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness, examining the potential risks of using LLMs as reviewers by simulation.
This simulation incorporates a research agent, which generates papers and revises, alongside a review agent, which assesses the submissions. 
Based on the simulation results, we conduct human annotations and identify pronounced misalignment between LLM-based reviews and human judgments:
(1) LLM reviewers systematically inflate scores for LLM-authored papers, assigning them markedly higher scores than human-authored ones;
(2) LLM reviewers persistently underrate human-authored papers with critical statements (e.g., risk, fairness), even after multiple revisions.
Our analysis reveals that these stem from two primary biases in LLM reviewers: a linguistic feature bias favoring LLM-generated writing styles, and an aversion toward critical statements.
These results highlight the risks and equity concerns posed to human authors and academic research if LLMs are deployed in the peer review cycle without adequate caution. 
On the other hand, revisions guided by LLM reviews yield quality gains in both LLM-based and human evaluations, illustrating the potential of the LLMs-as-reviewers for early-stage researchers and enhancing low-quality papers.

TL;DR: We focus on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness, examining the potential risks of using LLMs as reviewers by simulation.