RottenReviews: Benchmarking Review Quality with Human and LLM-Based Judgments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quality of peer review plays a critical role in scientific publishing, yet remains poorly understood and challenging to evaluate at scale. In this work, we introduce RottenReviews, a benchmark designed to facilitate systematic assessment of review quality. RottenReviews comprises over 15,000 submissions from four distinct academic venues enriched with over 9,000 reviewer scholarly profiles and paper metadata. We define and compute a diverse set of quantifiable review-dependent and reviewer-dependent metrics, and compare them against structured assessments from large language models (LLMs) and expert human annotations. Our human-annotated subset includes over 700 paper-review pairs labeled across 13 explainable and conceptual dimensions of review quality. Our empirical findings reveal that LLMs, both zero-shot and fine-tuned, exhibit limited alignment with human expert evaluations of peer review quality. Surprisingly, simple interpretable models trained on quantifiable features outperform fine-tuned LLMs in predicting overall review quality. We publicly release all data, code, and models at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/RottenReviews to support further research in this area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.263 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".