MetaWriter: Exploring the Potential and Perils of AI Writing Support in Scientific Peer Review

Abstract

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) show the potential to significantly augment or even replace complex human writing activities. However, for complex tasks where people need to make decisions as well as write a justification, the trade offs between making work efficient and hindering decisions remain unclear. In this paper, we explore this question in the context of designing intelligent scaffolding for writing meta-reviews for an academic peer review process. We prototyped a system called "MetaWriter'' trained on five years of open peer review data to support meta-reviewing. The system highlights common topics in the original peer reviews, extracts key points by each reviewer, and on request, provides a preliminary draft of a meta-review that can be further edited. To understand how novice and experienced meta-reviewers use MetaWriter, we conducted a within-subject study with 32 participants. Each participant wrote meta-reviews for two papers: one with and one without MetaWriter. We found that MetaWriter significantly expedited the authoring process and improved the coverage of meta-reviews, as rated by experts, compared to the baseline. While participants recognized the efficiency benefits, they raised concerns around trust, over-reliance, and agency. We also interviewed six paper authors to understand their opinions of using machine intelligence to support the peer review process and reported critical reflections. We discuss implications for future interactive AI writing tools to support complex synthesis work.