Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Local AI pre-screening for human triple-blind peer review in health sciences

Academic peer review is under mounting strain: NeurIPS 2025 received 21,575 submissions, ICLR 2025 received 11,603, and ICML 2025 received 12,107. This volume has outpaced the supply of qualified reviewers, and large language models (LLMs) are already filling the gap, largely undisclosed. An independent analysis of ICLR 2026 found roughly 21% of its 75,800 peer reviews were fully AI-generated, with over half showing some AI involvement (up from 15.8% in 2024). Documented risks include hallucinated citations in accepted papers and hidden prompt-injection instructions embedded in manuscripts to manipulate AI reviewers into favorable assessments. We propose a triple-blind, multi-LLM pre-scre...

AuthorsRodrigo Martins Boos
Primary categorycs.CY
Published18 July 2026
Last updated at source18 July 2026
cs.CYcs.AIcs.DL
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/ed6222d1-8acb-42c5-8fca-6bc8b3ab1115" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.