Review
No mentions found
This entity hasn't been tracked yet, or Iris is still building its knowledge base.
Related Articles from SNS
Expanded implementation of Fast & Fair paid peer review reduces time to first decision without reducing review quality in a biology journal
Traditional peer review is often slowed by delays in identifying willing reviewers and waiting for completed review reports. In a 2024 pilot on the journal Biology Open, we showed that Fast & Fair peer review, which uses pre-contracted paid reviewers and a structured editorial timeline, could deliver rapid, high-quality peer. Here, we report the expanded implementation of Fast & Fair at Biology Open in 2025.
EGTR-Review: Efficient Evidence-Grounded Scientific Peer Review Generation via Multi-Agent Teacher Distillation
arXiv:2606.06025v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback. However, existing Large Language Model (LLM)-based methods often produce generic comments with insufficient evidence support and weak source traceability, while complex multi-agent systems incur high inference costs. To address these challenges, we propose EGTR-Review, an Evidence-Grounded and Traceable Review...
Rethinking Code Review in the Age of AI: A Vision for Agentic Code Review
arXiv:2605.17548v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Code review has evolved for decades, from informal peer checking to today's pull request (PR) workflows, yet it remains a largely manual and cognitively demanding process. The rise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) coding assistants has intensified this challenge: while these tools increase code production velocity, they also expand the volume of code requiring review, turning code review into a growing bottleneck. Current AI support in code...
The State of Peer Review in Empirical Software Engineering: A Community Survey on Review Load, Quality, and GenAI Use
Announce Type: new Abstract: The scientific peer review system has been slowly deteriorating over the last years, and not just within empirical software engineering (ESE) research. Increased submission numbers, high workload, and the rise of generative AI use with all its associated issues have made many cracks in the system more visible. To get a better understanding of the current state of peer review in the ESE community, we conducted a questionnaire survey, which accumulated 120 responses.
Trust-Calibrated Code Review: A Participatory Design Study of Review Workflows for LLM-Generated Multi-File Changes
Announce Type: new Abstract: Background: Developers increasingly review multi-file code changes generated by LLM-based agents, yet no validated end-to-end workflow or IDE tooling design exists for this scenario. Aims: We investigate (RQ1) the challenges developers face when reviewing LLM-generated multi-file changes and (RQ2) how developers envision effective workflows for this task.
Social Learning with Limited Attention: Negative Reviews Persist under Newest First
arXiv:2406.06929v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We study a model of social learning from reviews where customers are computationally limited and make purchases based on reading only the first few reviews displayed by the platform. Under this limited attention, we establish that the review ordering policy can have a significant impact. In particular, the popular Newest First ordering induces a negative review to persist as the most recent review longer than a positive review.
Improving LLM-Based Go Code Review through Issue-List Generation and Context Augmentation
Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs have shown strong potential for automating code review, yet their practical utility depends heavily on the design of generation and context strategies. In this paper, we investigate how to improve LLM-based code review through generation strategy and contextual augmentation. We first propose an issue-list review paradigm, in which LLMs enumerate all potential issues rather than reporting only the single most important one (i.e., primary-issue review).
DWP confirms these PIP claimants could face six-year review periods
DWP confirms these PIP claimants could face six-year review periods The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has confirmed that certain Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants could have their awards reviewed every four or six years under updated guidance The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has confirmed that certain Personal Independence Payment (PIP) claimants could face reviews just once every four or six years under revised award guidelines. The update was brought to light...
Improving User Experience with Personalized Review Ranking and Summarization
arXiv:2601.05261v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Online consumer reviews are important decision-support resources in e-commerce, yet the increasing volume of reviews often creates information overload and makes it difficult for users to identify content that matches their individual preferences. Existing review-ranking approaches commonly rely on aggregate signals such as star ratings, helpfulness votes, or recency, which may not reflect user-specific interests. This paper proposes a...
5 things over-50s should review - from old pensions to forgotten life insurance
5 things over-50s should review - from old pensions to forgotten life insurance Millions of people over 50 could be missing opportunities to improve their finances simply because they haven't reviewed financial products they set up years ago From pensions opened decades ago to life insurance policies taken out when children were young, financial commitments that once made perfect sense may no longer be the best fit today. Experts say a regular financial review can help people identify...