Lee et al. 2025 report LLM modification rates of 6.5% to 16.9% in AI conference peer reviews but no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications in Nature journals, a discipline-level variation that parallels Kobak et al. 2025's finding that LLM usage lower bounds differ across disciplines, countries, and journals.
E20 (from Lee et al. 2025) reports LLM modification rates of 6.5% to 16.9% in AI conference peer reviews and no significant evidence of LLM-based modifications in Nature journals, noting use varies widely across disciplines, which parallels E1's statement that lower bounds differed across disciplines, countries, and journals.
Written by GLM-5.3 via Ollama Cloud · 30 Sept, 22:53
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.
- 02
“This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals, reaching 40% for some subcorpora.”
Full-text passage · no page number · evidence E1
Passage read from www.ebi.ac.uk, which may be a preprint rather than the published version.