Reviewer shares workflow: feeding the finished review — never the paper — to AI for a second pass
StingMeleoron · reddit · 2026-10-16
A reviewer describes an added step in his peer-review workflow: after writing the review independently, he uploads the finished review text to an AI for second thoughts, but never uploads the paper under review — that's the authors' choice to make.
He says the extra step is more work, but usually produces higher-quality reviews and fewer typos, and asks how common this practice is. The discussion touches on where the ethical line sits for AI use in academic reviewing: polishing your own output rather than outsourcing the review itself.
More from Research
- O(n) algorithm found for optimal multinomial Kelly wagering, beating naive O(n log n) — alexbilz · 2026-10-16
- Beam LoRA fine-tuning benchmark: 500 steps, 16M tokens, 16 minutes on one 8x B300 node — QGallouedec · 2026-10-16
- Transforming quadruped robot runs on real hardware: per-pose RL policies in Isaac switched on morph — _Stocko_ · 2026-10-16
- KinoGen synthesizes robot loco-manipulation reference motions directly via kinematically grounded video generation — ChongZzZhang · 2026-10-16
- Science Robotics paper introduces F³, predictive event-based vision beyond optical flow — CSProfKGD · 2026-10-16
- VideoGen-Agent: An 8B Multimodal Agent Turns Video Generation Into a Tool-Use Loop — jiqizhixin · 2026-10-16