5 free resources on this topic. Everything here is free and hand-picked. You can also search within this topic.
joe-baumann.comResearch PaperTechnology & Ethics
- Authors
- Joachim Baumann, Jiaxin Pei, Sanmi Koyejo, Dirk Hovy
- Venue
- ICML 2026 — Position Paper Track (Oral)
- Published
- 2026-05-04
- ID
- arXiv:2605.03202
Peer-reviewed ICML 2026 position paper by Joachim Baumann, Jiaxin Pei, Sanmi Koyejo, and Dirk Hovy, accepted for an oral presentation. Compares human and AI ICLR 2026 reviews and tests automated paper rewriting, reporting excessive reviewer agreement and susceptibility to stylistic changes. The authors argue for rigorous evaluation before automating peer review.
#research#peer-review#ai-evaluation
joe-baumann.comAdded Oct 23, 20260 opens 
gking.harvard.eduResearch PaperTechnology & Ethics
- Authors
- Gary King, Steven Worthington
- Venue
- Working paper, Harvard University
- Published
- 2026-10-22
Shows that AI-generated article reviews scored better, by every measure the authors constructed, than reviews written by well-compensated human experts judged to be of unusually high quality, and discusses implications for journal policy. Working paper.
#peer-review#publishing#research#working-paper
gking.harvard.eduAdded Oct 23, 20260 opens 
openreview.netA free, open platform where machine-learning researchers submit and peer-review papers in public. Much of the field's conference review (including major AI venues) runs on it, and anyone can read the papers, reviews and rebuttals.
#ai-research#peer-review#papers#open-science
openreview.netAdded Sep 28, 20260 opens 
sciety.orgFree service that gathers public expert evaluations and reviews of preprints in one place, so you can see what other researchers said about a study before it was formally published.
Why I recommend it: Use it as a sanity check on a preprint someone is quoting at you. No evaluation on Sciety means nobody independent has publicly assessed it yet — which is not the same as the study being wrong.
#preprints#peer-review#research#open-science#evaluation
sciety.orgAdded Sep 23, 20260 opens 
agmai.orgDirectoryTechnology & Ethics
An independent group of nine mathematicians — including Timothy Gowers, Martin Hairer, Edward Witten, Ravi Vakil and Melanie Matchett Wood — formed to advise AI companies on how mathematical results produced by AI models should be presented and released. The site states its purpose, its members, and its current task: advising OpenAI on how to release a large batch of mathematical results the company says its internal model produced. There is an open form for anyone in the mathematical community to send input.
Why I recommend it: Free, and short enough to read in five minutes — a good example of what independent oversight looks like when it is written down. Read their own two caveats rather than mine: members take no payment and the group is independent of any AI company, but they also say plainly that they hold no decision-making power, so the companies remain free to ignore them. The group formed after OpenAI approached some members about an in-house advisory board and they chose to sit outside it instead.
#academic#accountability#ai ethics#ai-claims#ai-governance#mathematics#openai#peer-review#primary-source#regulation#research#research-ethics#transparency
agmai.orgAdded Sep 23, 20260 opens 