academic journal editors

Abstract: Since late 2022, a Limitations section has become mandatory at many top-tier NLP conferences. The growing number of accepted papers at these venues has resulted in a vast corpus of self-reported limitations that cannot all be manually reviewed, yet remains systematically unanalyzed. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a large-scale analysis of the Limitations sections from ACL and EMNLP papers published between 2020 and 2025 to understand what researchers disclose about their own work. To do so, we implement a novel human-AI framework for iterative hybrid qualitative coding. This framework enables us to investigate trends in self-reported limitations over time, their correlations with specific paper attributes, and the writing patterns that recur around these disclosures. Our findings offer a critical reflection on the diverse reported challenges as well as the self-reporting practices of researchers in the NLP community.

Abstract: Selective AI conferences have recently begun enforcing ethics flags and related review requirements, with the goal being to steer research towards safer and more responsible practices before publication. But do these requirements actually steer research as intended? In this paper, we show that authors more often revise how projects are presented following ethics flags than redirect their underlying research agendas. We first study the longitudinal effects of ethics flags by following rejected and withdrawn ICLR submissions with ethics flags into later public resubmissions, tracking manuscript changes after the ICLR review ends, when the original reviewers no longer oversee the project. We qualitatively code these resubmissions into five categories based on what changed after review and find that in 83% of 446 cases, authors leave the flagged concern unaddressed or revise the paper without changing the implicated methods or procedures. Then, we ask: if authors rarely change the research in response to ethics flags, what do they change instead? To answer this, we manually read reviews and rebuttals from 25 cases and directly interview authors about their rebuttal processes and resubmission decisions. We find that authors often concede concerns during rebuttal when reviewers can update their assessments, but drop those concessions after rejection when they do not regard the criticism as a sound reason to change the research. Interview participants describe publication changes as separate from changes to research direction, calling review an "editorial process" that shapes "what stories get seen" and, in another case, saying peer reviews are "mostly to filter out papers." Authors more readily change what they publish than what they study or build; we therefore recommend policy changes, especially disclosure of prior ethics flags upon resubmission so accountability carries over.

Abstract: Language models leave a distinctive vocabulary in the prose they help write, and we measure how much of the astronomy literature now carries it. From the full text of 207,111 astro-ph papers spanning 2015 to mid-2026, we count those words in each paper and model the counts, in proportion to paper length, as a mixture of assisted and unassisted writing in a hierarchical Bayesian model. Papers from before 2020 calibrate the unassisted rate, and the 392 papers that disclose model use calibrate the assisted one. Our answer depends on how often these words would appear today if nobody used a model, a rate that must be modeled rather than observed, so we extend it past 2020 under three assumptions and report all three. For 2025 that gives $54^{+8}_{-8}\,(\mathrm{stat},\,95\%)\,^{+26}_{-0}\,(\mathrm{sys,\ background})$% of papers, the second error being the spread across the three. The estimate stays at or above 36% when we vary that choice, the calibration, and the requirement that adoption only rises. A word list built from the astro-ph corpus, keeping only words that rose across every subfield, leaves 2025 in the same range. Assisted writing is also getting harder to see, since authors adapt to the words that reveal it and the marker excess more than halves between 2023 and 2026. Our model allows for that fading, so it can separate a fainter trace from reduced use. More than half of recent astro-ph papers therefore carry a language-model trace, while only 0.81% of 2025 papers disclose it, one declaration for every $\sim$66 papers with a trace.

Abstract: As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Abstract: Large language models have collapsed the cost of producing lexically elaborate prose, and whether peer reviewers still reward it is a question about the evaluator, not about the text. When the association between a writing cue and review scores moves across years, the reviewers may have changed, the submissions may have changed, or both, and a regression of scores on text cannot say which. We separate the two with a frozen rater: 81,850 machine reviews of ICLR submissions from 2018 to 2025, all generated in one February-April 2025 window with one model family and one prompt, so that its year-to-year coefficients track submission composition alone and the human-minus-frozen trend difference identifies reviewer preference drift. On 32,638 submissions with 124,615 human reviews, the human coefficient on non-domain lexical complexity falls from +0.142 to -0.015 while the frozen rater moves from +0.080 to +0.082; the three-way difference-in-differences is -0.0100 (q=0.013), and forty random-wordlist placebos through the same specification centre on zero. Humans still reward sentence-length variability, which the frozen rater never registers, while the frozen rater still pays for lexical complexity at its earlier rate. Every claim is held to a double gate of false-discovery control and interval exclusion, and the findings that failed adversarial re-testing are reported. Reviewers discounted a cue whose production cost collapsed, as models of manipulable signals prescribe; an LLM judge calibrated to historical human preferences inherits the earlier schedule and drifts out of alignment while its agreement with humans on totals stays ordinary.

Abstract: Generative and agentic AI are reshaping both the production and evaluation of scientific research. These developments are often studied separately, as questions of how AI can produce research and how AI can review it. We argue that this separation misses an increasingly important feature of scholarly publishing: changes on one side alter the incentives, constraints, and behavior of the other. We synthesize 230 scholarly publications and institutional records using a taxonomy of six connected dynamics: production scaling, evaluation automation, evaluation manipulation, defense mechanisms and policy responses, evasion and side effects, and long-horizon ecosystem feedback. The literature shows an emerging progression in which cheaper and faster research production increases pressure on evaluation, AI-mediated evaluation becomes more scalable and repeatable, participants can exploit evaluator regularities, and institutions respond with technical safeguards and policy controls. These responses can in turn induce evasion, redistribute errors and workload, and shape the scholarly records reused by future research and evaluation systems. Evidence is strongest for production and evaluation at scale, reproducible manipulation, and institutional response, while post-policy adaptation and artifact-level long-horizon feedback remain less directly observed. This systems view shifts attention from isolated AI capabilities toward how scholarly actors and AI systems adapt to one another over time.

Abstract: Excess vocabulary, a word's frequency above its pre-2023 trend, is how the change in scholarly English after 2022 has been measured. We adapt it to Korean with morphological units on 398,296 KCI abstracts (2018-August 2026), with 47,165 Vietnamese abstracts for comparison. Placebo floors are 0.1-2.2 points for the single-word statistic and at most 2.9 for the re-selected split-half set statistic. Korean abstracts show nothing in 2023, onset in late 2024, a rise through 2025 flattening in mid-2026: sisahada "suggest" appears in 21.4% of 2026 abstracts against 5.3% expected; plain verbs like araboda "look into" fall to a quarter of trend. Under stated assumptions the single-word conditional lower bound on LLM-processed abstracts is 3.5%, 10.5% and 16.1% for 2024-2026 and a split-half set bound 7.8%, 20.6% and 33.0%. Holzwarth et al.'s estimator under the same discipline gives 41.9% and 72.1% for 2025-2026. Subject-matter controls reduce but do not remove it: restricting the set to lemmas three language-model annotators all call style leaves 14.7 of the 33.0 points, and pairing each 2026 abstract with its journal's closest base-period abstract leaves 34.1. Tested translation routes do not explain it: the surface marks of translated Korean fall as the markers rise. In the same articles' English abstracts the excess appears a year earlier; where the English side carries none, the Korean shift persists at 30 to 66% of the rate where it does. Control abstracts from three providers reproduce the rising words, with marker turnover consistent with model generations; implied prevalences are scenario-dependent.