Claim 10 · research-integrity · finding
Kobak et al. (2025) argue their method avoids reliance on ground-truth LLM-generated text, which may not represent real scholarly LLM use, and that extending it to earlier years lets them place LLM effects in historical context against events like COVID-19.
Not supportedPlanted error · a deliberate wrong connection for the demo
The cited Lee et al. text concerns LLM use in peer review and does not discuss Kobak et al.'s method or its advantages.
Written by Claude Sonnet 5.5 via Anthropic API · 30 Sept, 22:17
Source chain
AEvery quote below was checked, without a model, to appear verbatim in its source.
- 01
“demonstrated LLM modification rates of 6.5% to 16.9% in AI conference peer reviews. In contrast, a similar analysis of journals in the Nature journals showed no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E20
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.