Should LLMs be first-pass reviewers for every scientific paper? Researchers say yes
anshulkundaje · x · 2026-09-21
- Computational biologist Anshul Kundaje amplifies Sam Sinai's proposal to formally add AI review to all scientific publishing.
- Sinai says he regularly runs Nature/Science-level papers through LLMs, and they correctly flag issues that human reviewers astonishingly missed.
- His proposal: each venue uses an AI reviewer with a prompt aligned to its standards to produce a first-pass review; human reviewers then read the paper plus the AI review, modify it independently or collaboratively, and take responsibility for the final verdict — even a simple "I take responsibility that this AI-assisted review is accurate."
- He criticizes the status quo as a "Werewolf game": an AI reviewer is clearly in the room, but everyone pretends it's all humans, with no transparency. Humans keep final say.
More from AGI Musings
- Weighing lives: does AI-accelerated medical research outweigh existential risk? — MaxUnfried · 2026-09-21
- AI computer use will break social networks' walled gardens, argues X user — tokumin · 2026-09-21
- Giles Carden and Josh Freeman discuss AI and the future of universities — ArtificialOther · 2026-09-21
- Back-of-envelope math: 60k ICLR submissions equal roughly one per AI PhD student worldwide — kchonyc · 2026-09-21
- Nature Health Paper Proposes an 'Epidemiology of AI,' Arguing AI Is Now a Determinant of Health — EricTopol · 2026-09-21
- MIT Professor Patrick Winston's Free 'How to Speak' Lecture Hits 10M Views, Rattling $15K-a-Session Executive Coaches — WileyEd · 2026-09-21