arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.37181

LitUbik: open-source software for human-led systematic reviews with traceable AI assistance

Adolphe J. Bequet·Sebastien Laurent·Baptiste Bouvier
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

LitUbik is an open-source, self-hosted tool for conducting systematic reviews, from the registered protocol to the PRISMA 2020 diagram. LitUbik covers calibrated search equations, automated searching, deduplication, blinded multi-reviewer screening, full-text retrieval, snowballing, appraisal, extraction and reporting, on one server or across disconnected instances. At each stage, optional AI assistance from commercial or local language models offers proposals that a named reviewer accepts or rejects. Every AI call is logged, so the AI-use disclosure is written from a record. A systematic review of 31 papers on review tools, conducted in LitUbik, compares it with existing tools and illustrates its use. LitUbik is distributed under AGPLv3.

Explore related subjects

cs.DL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Adolphe J. Bequet, Sebastien Laurent, Baptiste Bouvier. 2026-10-27. LitUbik: open-source software for human-led systematic reviews with traceable AI assistance. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.37181

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

More of the same? Are scientific papers losing originality?

Scientific output is growing rapidly, but it is unclear whether the expanding literature remains original or is increasingly repeating itself. Originality has many dimensions. One dimension can now be measured directly: how textually distinct a paper is from the work that came before it. Using semantic language models, we screened more than 26,000 full-text papers across eight fields in the CORE database (2015--2025) for passages resembling recent literature. We compared every paper against a fixed-size sample of earlier work, so increases in resemblance are not a by-product of literature growth. We find that the share of a paper's text resembling recent work was stable before 2021, then rose sharply, more than tripling by 2025. The increase came not from a few papers borrowing more heavily but from resemblance spreading across the literature: more papers now contain passages that echo recent work, and almost none of this growth is explained by cited work. We also found an analogous increase in passages expressing the same scientific idea. The pattern held across robustness checks and replicated in a second, independent database. Along this one measurable axis of originality, scientific writing has become less distinct from the work preceding it.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Organizational Structure and the Research of U.S. Library and Information Science Schools

U.S. Library and Information Science (LIS) schools are organized differently: some are independent, and others share a parent unit with computing, communication, education, or the arts and sciences. We ask whether their research differs accordingly, using 18,048 publications (2013--2026) by 1,602 faculty members at 44 ALA-accredited schools. We grouped the 15,934 publications with abstracts into 15 research themes with document embeddings and hierarchical clustering, and classified venues by field. Faculty members' research profiles differ by school type in themes and, more clearly, in venues, but type accounts for only 2.2% and 5.3% of the variation; most lies among faculty of the same school. The differences run from libraries and archives to computational research. Schools housed with computing spread over the most themes and publish most on security, networks, and urban computing, on clinical and biomedical informatics, and in computer science venues; schools housed with education spread over the fewest and concentrate most on libraries, archives, and computing education; independent schools stay closest to the average. Over the period, schools moved away from library research and LIS venues, but seldom toward the venues of their parent unit's discipline. Research appears to follow a school's faculty more than its parent unit.

cs.DL↗
arXiv2026

Interpreting LLM Scores in Peer Review: Alignment and Divergence Across Prompts, Domains, and Manuscript Features

Large language model (LLM) scores are being studied as information for scholarly evaluation. Interpreting these scores requires evidence about agreement with human judgments and its variation across evaluation conditions. Guided by an argument-based approach to validation, we compare four LLMs on 7,083 public ICLR 2024 submissions under a standard review condition and examine ten prompt conditions using DeepSeek-V3.2. We distinguish average score divergence, paper-level absolute error, and rank correlation, then examine domain differences and adjusted manuscript-feature associations. For DeepSeek-V3.2, Area Chair guidance reduces mean rating divergence from 1.460 to 0.199 points and mean absolute error from 1.577 to 0.942, while rank correlation changes from 0.377 to 0.387. Historical references combined with downward scoring instructions yield mean divergence of 0.052 and rank correlation of 0.321. Domain differences remain after global calibration. Longer titles have positive adjusted associations with rating divergence, and formula density has negative associations across all four configurations. These findings connect score interpretation to the scoring procedure, evaluation context, and manuscript information represented in the comparison. They show why aggregate alignment, manuscript ordering, and correspondence within manuscript groups require distinct evidence when evaluating LLM-generated scholarly assessment information.

cs.DL↗