arXiv subjects

Mike Thelwall

Publications and source records attributed to Mike Thelwall.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly discussed as tools for peer review, but their value is often assessed through human-likeness, perceived usefulness, or textual overlap with reviewer comments. This study shifts attention from whether LLMs resemble human reviewers to what functions of scientific critique they perform. Using ICLR 2025 peer-review data, we compare human reviews with LLM reviews generated under baseline and expert prompts. We operationalize scientific critique through two review acts, weakness critique and scientific questioning, and annotate point-level review text using five theory-guided frameworks: Anderson's knowledge types, Toulmin's argumentation model, Graesser's question depth, SOLO cognitive complexity, and Hattie's feedback functions. The results reveal a differentiated critique profile. Human reviews placed greater emphasis on scientific framing and revision guidance, more often identifying higher-order weaknesses and asking questions oriented toward improvement. LLM reviews showed higher rates of explanatory depth, integrative reasoning, and explicit argument structuring. Expert prompting did not make LLM critique uniformly more human-like; it partially narrowed some gaps but mainly amplified LLM-specific tendencies toward integration and formal argumentation. These findings show that LLM-assisted peer review changes the functional composition of review text, making it important to distinguish LLM-amplified critique from areas requiring human prioritization and accountable judgement.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Favour Any Research Topics?

Large Language Models (LLMs) can estimate the quality of published journal articles, potentially supporting human assessment when evaluations are needed. Whilst there are reasons to believe that LLMs may have biases in this role, there is no statistically strong evidence yet. The current article addresses this gap with an exploration of the types of articles that attract high or low LLM scores in 73,489 articles from 15 health and life sciences journals. Based on comparing the words in the titles and abstracts of higher and lower scoring articles for two LLMs in various ways, the results suggest that topics favoured by GPT-OSS-120B include viruses, genes and cells and its disfavoured topics include surveys, patients and students. It is not clear whether these patterns reflect underlying quality differences or AI biases, however. The same method found systematic differences between the topics favoured by GPT-OSS-120B and Gemma 3 27B, such as Gemma 3 27B giving relatively higher scores for machine learning research, proving that at least one of the two LLMs has AI bias. Finally, comparing the scores for full-text articles compared to scores for titles and abstracts also finds differences for both LLMs, showing that they both can exhibit AI bias for at least one of these two input types, and probably both. Overall, the results show that it is important to consider LLM biases when deciding whether to use them for research evaluation tasks.

cs.DL↗