ReviewFlow: Intelligent Scaffolding to Support Academic Peer Reviewing
Authors
Peer review is a cornerstone of science. Research communities conduct peer reviews to assess contributions and to improve the overall quality of science work. Every year, new community members are recruited as peer reviewers for the first time. How could technology help novices adhere to their community's practices and standards for peer reviewing? To better understand peer review practices and challenges, we conducted a formative study with 10 novices and 10 experts. We found that many experts adopt a workflow of annotating, note-taking, and synthesizing notes into well-justified reviews that align with community standards. Novices lack timely guidance on how to read and assess submissions and how to structure paper reviews. To support the peer review process, we developed ReviewFlow -- an AI-driven workflow that scaffolds novices with contextual reflections to critique and annotate submissions, in-situ knowledge support to assess novelty, and notes-to-outline synthesis to help align peer reviews with community expectations. In a within-subjects experiment, 16 inexperienced reviewers wrote reviews using ReviewFlow and a baseline environment with minimal guidance. Participants produced more comprehensive reviews using ReviewFlow than the baseline, calling out more pros and cons, but they still struggled to provide actionable suggestions to address the weaknesses. While participants appreciated the streamlined process support from ReviewFlow, they also expressed concerns about using AI as part of the scientific review process. We discuss the implications of using AI to scaffold peer review process on scientific work and beyond.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
Research Questions
3- How can novice reviewers be provided dynamic, context-relevant guidance to improve academic review quality?Category: Academic Review and Reflection ScaffoldingSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- Can intelligent scaffolding support novices in reflective reading and efficient writing?Category: Academic Review and Reflection ScaffoldingSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- How effective are LLM-based academic review support tools in practice?Category: Academic Review and Reflection ScaffoldingSimilar questionsarrow_forward
Practical Problems
1- Novice reviewers lack structured guidance during the review process, leading to inconsistent review quality.Category: Academic Review and Reflection ScaffoldingSimilar questionsarrow_forward
- 100%
Cody: An AI-Based System to Semi-Automate Coding for Qualitative Research
CHI '21· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 80%
Are We On Track? AI-Assisted Active and Passive Goal Reflection During Meetings
CHI '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 80%
Large Language Models in Qualitative Research: Uses, Tensions, and Intentions
CHI '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 80%
IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedback
CHI '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 80%
Underreporting of AI Use: The Role of Social Desirability Bias
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 80%
LLM-based In-situ Thought Exchanges for Critical Paper Reading
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 80%
DiscipLink: Unfolding Interdisciplinary Information Seeking Process via Human-AI Co-Exploration
UIST '24· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 75%
How to Write CHI Papers -- Second Edition
CHI '18· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation)
- 75%
3rd Early Career Development Symposium
CHI '18· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation)
- 75%
Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction
CHI '18· User Research Methods (Interviews, Surveys, Observation)
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)