arXiv subjects

Mike Thelwall

Publications and source records attributed to Mike Thelwall.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond Human-Likeness: Mapping the Scientific Critique Profiles of LLMs and Human Reviewers

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly discussed as tools for peer review, but their value is often assessed through human-likeness, perceived usefulness, or textual overlap with reviewer comments. This study shifts attention from whether LLMs resemble human reviewers to what functions of scientific critique they perform. Using ICLR 2025 peer-review data, we compare human reviews with LLM reviews generated under baseline and expert prompts. We operationalize scientific critique through two review acts, weakness critique and scientific questioning, and annotate point-level review text using five theory-guided frameworks: Anderson's knowledge types, Toulmin's argumentation model, Graesser's question depth, SOLO cognitive complexity, and Hattie's feedback functions. The results reveal a differentiated critique profile. Human reviews placed greater emphasis on scientific framing and revision guidance, more often identifying higher-order weaknesses and asking questions oriented toward improvement. LLM reviews showed higher rates of explanatory depth, integrative reasoning, and explicit argument structuring. Expert prompting did not make LLM critique uniformly more human-like; it partially narrowed some gaps but mainly amplified LLM-specific tendencies toward integration and formal argumentation. These findings show that LLM-assisted peer review changes the functional composition of review text, making it important to distinguish LLM-amplified critique from areas requiring human prioritization and accountable judgement.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models Favour Any Research Topics?

Large Language Models (LLMs) can estimate the quality of published journal articles, potentially supporting human assessment when evaluations are needed. Whilst there are reasons to believe that LLMs may have biases in this role, there is no statistically strong evidence yet. The current article addresses this gap with an exploration of the types of articles that attract high or low LLM scores in 73,489 articles from 15 health and life sciences journals. Based on comparing the words in the titles and abstracts of higher and lower scoring articles for two LLMs in various ways, the results suggest that topics favoured by GPT-OSS-120B include viruses, genes and cells and its disfavoured topics include surveys, patients and students. It is not clear whether these patterns reflect underlying quality differences or AI biases, however. The same method found systematic differences between the topics favoured by GPT-OSS-120B and Gemma 3 27B, such as Gemma 3 27B giving relatively higher scores for machine learning research, proving that at least one of the two LLMs has AI bias. Finally, comparing the scores for full-text articles compared to scores for titles and abstracts also finds differences for both LLMs, showing that they both can exhibit AI bias for at least one of these two input types, and probably both. Overall, the results show that it is important to consider LLM biases when deciding whether to use them for research evaluation tasks.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Does ChatGPT score research quality differently by gender?

Large Language Models (LLMs) are being considered for research evaluation, raising concerns about the introduction of AI bias. This study investigates whether ChatGPT research quality scores differ by first-author gender using 89,744 journal articles from the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. Author information was withheld from ChatGPT to avoid direct gender bias. Nevertheless, male first-authored papers had slightly higher ChatGPT scores in most Units of Assessment (UoAs), especially in health, science and engineering-related subjects, and this pattern was often stronger for ChatGPT than for REF scores, based on a departmental-level proxy. Rank-based ChatGPT gains relative to REF scores were also more favourable for male first-authored papers in most UoAs, although the differences were generally small. Gender differences were not evident for solo research in the social sciences, arts and humanities, however. The male-favouring pattern for first-authored research was not explained by gender differences in writing styles, at least as reflected in abstract complexity. Some ChatGPT-REF differences may also reflect the departmental averaging process used to generate the REF proxy scores. Average ChatGPT scores may differ by first-author gender indirectly through other factors, such as field, topic, method, journal context or authorship structure. Thus, this is an additional reason to be cautious with AI-based research evaluation.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Is ChatGPT as reliable as individual reviewers assessing the quality of published journal articles from PDFs or titles and abstracts?

Whilst Large Language Models (LLMs) have a weak to moderate ability to score published journal articles for research quality, they have not been compared with individual expert reviewers. It is also unknown whether quality scores from ChatGPT based on PDFs can improve on those from titles and abstracts through a deeper evaluation. To address both issues, this article uses expert scores (98 internal departmental ratings for UK Unit of Assessment [UoA] 3 Allied Health Professions, 44 for UoA13 Architecture, and 58 library and information science articles from UoA34), comparing them against ChatGPT-5.4 scores from both title/abstract and PDF inputs. For UoA3, individual reviewer scores were also compared against each other and ChatGPT-5.4. The rank correlations with expert scores are almost all statistically significantly positive, but differences between the correlations are mostly not, despite weakly suggesting that ChatGPT-5.4 can be more reliable than individual reviewers for UoA3. Moreover, whilst ChatGPT-5.4 provides more detailed evaluations of PDFs than of titles/abstracts, its score predictions do not seem to improve. Thus, whilst the results broadly confirm the value of ChatGPT scores for ranking academic documents, its apparently deeper evaluative comments on PDFs are misleading in the sense of not translating to improved score predictions.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Should children follow their parents' research paths? Intergenerational research continuity and divergence in academic families

How academic advantages are transmitted within families is usually studied as occupational inheritance, but it is not clear whether scholarly research orientations persist across generations and if it is an advantage when it does. To address this, we link Wikidata kinship records with OpenAlex bibliometric profiles to study 3,229 documented parent-child scholar pairs and 488,659 publications. Field-level research similarity was evident but not universal: whilst the median similarity was 0.546, 25.3% of parent-child pairs had no Field overlap (i.e., similarity 0). These pairs were substantially more similar than publication-period-matched comparison pairs (median 0.098). Direct academic interaction was uncommon: 10.4% of parent-child pairs had co-authored, 9.8% of children had cited their parents, and 6.9% of parents had cited their children. Nevertheless, each 0.1 increase in Field similarity was associated with 38-39% higher adjusted odds of co-authorship and cross-citation. There was also intergenerational continuity in academic achievement and recognition. Parents' publication volume and field-normalized citation impact were positively associated with those of their children. Children of national academy members had approximately twice the odds of becoming national academy members themselves (Odds Ratio = 2.04), while children of prizewinning parents had 46% higher odds of winning prizes (Odds Ratio = 1.46). However, children of national academy members showed lower research similarity to their parents. Greater research differentiation was associated with higher field-normalized citation impact among children, but not with publication output or higher odds of academic recognition. Academic families therefore appear to transmit resources and advantages with the sole exception that diverging from parental fields seems to confer a citation advantage.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Science discussions of retracted articles on Bluesky: public scrutiny or misinformation spreading?

Post-publication peer review (PPPR) has emerged as an important supplement to traditional peer review, with social media playing a growing role in publicising potential problems in published research. However, it remains unclear whether social media discussions of retracted articles primarily reflect good practices, such as exposing flaws and acknowledging retraction status, or bad practices, such as overlooking retractions and continuing to disseminate scientific misinformation. In this study, we collected Bluesky posts referencing scholarly articles from Altmetric and retrieved metadata for the referenced articles using OpenAlex. The final dataset included 284 retracted articles with 79 pre-retraction posts and 857 post-retraction posts, 59 retraction notices with 186 posts, and 609,461 non-retracted articles with 1,344,756 posts. We manually coded Bluesky posts discussing retracted articles to identify instances of good and bad practice. The results show that posts demonstrating good practice (89.9%) substantially outnumbered those demonstrating bad practice (10.1%). Posts reflecting good practice also had more user engagement. In the pre-retraction phase, good practice posts constituted a slight minority (43.0%), whereas in the post-retraction phase they were dominant (94.2%). Most negative posts in the pre-retraction phase (90.0%) had good practice while only 17.3% positive posts in the post-retraction phase showed bad practice. Thus, sentiment analysis can be helpful to filter posts that could flag potential flaws before retraction, but it may struggle to accurately identify the spread of misinformation after retraction. More broadly, this study highlights the potential of Bluesky to support responsible scientific communication, public scrutiny, and research integrity.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Do Large Language Models know Which Published Articles have been Retracted?

Large Language Models (LLMs) can be helpful for literature search and summarisation, but retracted articles can confuse them. This article asks three open weights (offline) LLMs whether 161 high profile retracted articles had been retracted, performing a similar check for a benchmark multidisciplinary set of 34,070 non-retracted articles. Based on titles and abstracts, in over 80% of cases the LLMs claimed that a retracted article had not been retracted (GPT OSS 120B: 82%; Gemma 3 27B: 84%; DeepSeek R1 72B: 88%). The reasons given for a correct retraction declaration were often wrong, even if detailed. This confirms that LLMs have little ability to distinguish between valid and retracted studies, unless they are allowed to, and do, check online. For the benchmark test, there were only 55 false retraction claims from 34,070 non-retracted full text articles, and 28 false claims when only the title and abstract were entered, suggesting that there is only a small chance that LLMs discount valid studies. When retractions are erroneously claimed, this does not seem to be due to mistakes in the article. Overall, the results give new reasons to be cautious about LLM claims about academic findings.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Will AI be overconfident about academic research findings when reliant on abstracts? (v1)

Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, DeepSeek and Gemini seem to be increasingly used for knowledge discovery, information retrieval, and knowledge summaries, including for academic topics. This can result in users being misled, such as due to hallucinations. These problems may be exacerbated for academic knowledge if LLMs base their answers on journal article abstracts when they lack full text access. To test whether the information content of abstracts can be misleading, full text articles were submitted to the GPT-OSS 120B, an LLM from OpenAI, asking it to assess separately the strength the claims for the main result in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion. Outside the social sciences and humanities, claims tended to be stronger in the abstract and conclusions than the discussion, suggesting that relying on the strength of claims in abstracts would be misleading. Thus, if LLMs ingest abstracts but not full texts, there is a risk that they will be overconfident about the findings and pass it on to users in response to relevant prompts. This is another reason to be cautious about using LLMs for academic-related knowledge discovery and summaries.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

Have LLM-associated terms increased in article full texts in all fields?

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and DeepSeek for translation and language polishing is a welcome development, reducing the longstanding publishing barrier to non-English speakers. Assessing the uptake of this facility is useful to give insights into changing nature of scientific writing. Although the prevalence of LLM-associated terms has been tracked across science in abstracts and for full text biomedical research, their science-wide prevalence in full texts is unknown. In response, this article investigates an expanded set of 80 potentially LLM-associated terms during 2021-2025 in a science-wide full text collection from the publisher MDPI (1.25 million articles), partly focusing on the 73 journals that published at least 500 articles in 2021. The results demonstrate the increasing prevalence of LLM-associated terms science-wide in full texts to 2024, with some terms declining from 2024 to 2025 and others continuing to increase. LLMs seem to avoid some terms (e.g., thus, moreover) and a few terms have stronger associations with abstracts than full texts (e.g., enhanced) or the opposite (e.g., leveraged). The term family "underscore" had the biggest increase: up to 29-fold. There are substantial differences between journals in the apparent use of LLMs for writing, from lower uptake in the life sciences to higher uptake in social sciences, electronic engineering and environmental science. Fields in which there is currently low uptake may need improved or specialist support, such as for reliably translating complex formulae, before the full benefits of automatic translation can be realised.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Which stylistic features fool ChatGPT research evaluations?

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to be used to support research evaluation and have a moderate capability to estimate the research quality of a journal article from its title and abstract. This paper assesses whether there are language-related factors unrelated to the quality of the research that influence ChatGPT's scores. Using a dataset of 99,277 journal articles submitted to the UK-wide Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 assessments, we calculated several readability indicators from abstracts and correlated them with ChatGPT scores and departmental REF scores. From the results, linguistic complexity and length were more strongly associated with ChatGPT research quality scores than with REF expert scores in many subject areas. Although cause-and-effect was not tested, these results suggest that ChatGPT may be more likely than human experts to reward linguistic complexity, with a potential bias towards longer and less readable abstracts in many fields. The apparent preference of LLMs for complex language is an undesirable feature for practical applications of LLMs for research quality evaluation, unless solutions can be found.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Can Large Language Models Evaluate Grant Proposal Quality? Revisiting the Wenner{\aa}s and Wold Peer Review Data

Purpose: Despite the importance of peer review for grant funding decisions, academics are often reluctant to conduct it. This can lead to long delays between submission and the final decision as well as the risk of substandard reviews from busy or non-specialist scholars. At least one funder now uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to reduce the reviewing burden but the accuracy of LLMs for scoring grant proposals needs to be assessed. Design/methodology/approach: This article compares scores from a range of medium sized open weights LLMs with peer review scores for a well-researched dataset, the Swedish Medical Council's post-doctoral fellowship applications from 1994. Findings: Whilst the LLM scores correlate moderately between each other (mean Spearman correlation: 0.34), they correlated weakly but positively and mostly statistically significantly with the average expert scores (mean Spearman correlation: 0.22). The highest rank correlation between expert scores and LLMs was 0.33 for Gemma 3 27b based on proposal titles and summaries without their main texts, which is about half (56%) of the correlation between reviewers. Research limitations: The small sample size, old funding call and heterogeneous evaluation criteria all undermine the robustness of the analysis. Practical implications: Despite the ability of LLMs to score grant proposals being quantitatively weaker than that of experts, at least in this special case, they may have role in application triage or tie-breaking. Originality/value: This is the first assessment of the value of LLM scores for funding proposals.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Designing large language model prompts to extract scores from messy text: A shared dataset and challenge

In some areas of computing, natural language processing and information science, progress is made by sharing datasets and challenging the community to design the best algorithm for an associated task. This article introduces a shared dataset of 1446 short texts, each of which describes a research quality score on the UK scale of 1* to 4*. This is a messy collection, with some texts not containing scores and others including invalid scores or strange formats. With this dataset there is also a description of what constitutes a valid score and a "gold standard" of the correct scores for these texts (including missing values). The challenge is to design a prompt for Large Language Models (LLMs) to extract the scores from these texts as accurately as possible. The format for the response should be a number and no other text so there are two aspects to the challenge: ensuring that the LLM returns only a number, and instructing it to deduce the correct number for the text. As part of this, the LLM prompt needs to explain when to return the missing value code, -1, instead of a number when the text does not clearly contain one. The article also provides an example of a simple prompt. The purpose of the challenge is twofold: to get an effective solution to this problem, and to increase understanding of prompt design and LLM capabilities for complex numerical tasks. The initial solution suggested has an accuracy of 72.6%, so the challenge is to beat this.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2026

Large Language Models for Departmental Expert Review Quality Scores

Presumably, peer reviewers and Large Language Models (LLMs) do very different things when asked to assess research. Still, recent evidence has shown that LLMs have a moderate ability to predict quality scores of published academic journal articles. One untested potential application of LLMs is for internal departmental review, which may be used to support appointment and promotion decisions or to select outputs for national assessments. This study assesses for the first time the extent to which (1) LLM quality scores align with internal departmental quality ratings and (2) LLM reports differ from expert reports. Using a private dataset of 58 published journal articles from the School of Information at the University of Sheffield, together with internal departmental quality ratings and reports, ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT-4o mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash scores correlate positively and moderately with internal departmental ratings, whether the input is just title/abstract or the full text. Whilst departmental reviews tended to be more specific and showing field-level knowledge, ChatGPT reports tended to be standardised, more general, repetitive, and with unsolicited suggestions for improvement. The results therefore (a) confirm the ability of LLMs to guess the quality scores of published academic research moderately well, (b) confirm that this ability is a guess rather than an evaluation (because it can be made based on title/abstract alone), (c) extend this ability to internal departmental expert review, and (d) show that LLM reports are less insightful than human expert reports for published academic journal articles.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Can ChatGPT evaluate research environments? Evidence from REF2021

UK academic departments are evaluated partly on the statements that they write about the value of their research environments for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) periodic assessments. These statements mix qualitative narratives and quantitative data, typically requiring time-consuming and difficult expert judgements to assess. This article investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can support the process or validate the results, using the UK REF2021 unit-level environment statements as a test case. Based on prompts mimicking the REF guidelines, ChatGPT 4o-mini scores correlated positively with expert scores in almost all 34 (field-based) Units of Assessment (UoAs). ChatGPT's scores had moderate to strong positive Spearman correlations with REF expert scores in 32 out of 34 UoAs: 14 UoAs above 0.7 and a further 13 between 0.6 and 0.7. Only two UoAs had weak or no significant associations (Classics and Clinical Medicine). From further tests for UoA34, multiple LLMs had significant positive correlations with REF2021 environment scores (all p < .001), with ChatGPT 5 performing best (r=0.81; $\rho$=0.82), followed by ChatGPT-4o-mini (r=0.68; $\rho$=0.67) and Gemini Flash 2.5 (r=0.67; $\rho$=0.69). If LLM-generated scores for environment statements are used in future to help reduce workload, support more consistent interpretation, and complement human review then caution must be exercised because of the potential for biases, inaccuracy in some cases, and unwanted systemic effects. Even the strong correlations found here seem unlikely to be judged close enough to expert scores to fully delegate the assessment task to LLMs.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Prompt perturbation and fraction facilitation sometimes strengthen Large Language Model scores

Large Language Models (LLMs) can be tasked with scoring texts according to pre-defined criteria and on a defined scale, but there is no recognised optimal prompting strategy for this. This article focuses on the task of LLMs scoring journal articles for research quality on a four-point scale, testing how user prompt design can enhance this ability. Based primarily on 1.7 million Gemma3 27b queries for 2780 health and life science articles with 58 similar prompts, the results show that improvements can be obtained by (a) testing semantically equivalent prompt variations, (b) averaging scores from semantically equivalent prompts, (c) specifying that fractional scores are allowed, and possibly also (d) not drawing attention to the input being partial. Whilst (a) and (d) suggests that models can be sensitive to how a task is phrased, (b) and (c) suggest that strategies to leverage more of the model's knowledge are helpful, such as by perturbing prompts and facilitating fractions. Perhaps counterintuitively, encouraging incorrect answers (fractions for this task) releases useful information about the model's certainty about its answers. Mixing semantically equivalent prompts also reduces the chance of getting no score for an input. Additional testing showed that the best prompts vary between LLMs, however, and were almost the opposite for ChatGPT 4o-mini, weakly aligned for Llama4 Scout and Magistral, and made little difference to Qwen3 32b and DeepSeek R1 32b. Overall, whilst there is no single best prompt, a good strategy for all models was to average the scores from a range of different semantically equivalent or similar prompts.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Can Small and Reasoning Large Language Models Score Journal Articles for Research Quality and Do Averaging and Few-shot Help?

Previous research has shown that journal article quality ratings from the cloud based Large Language Model (LLM) families ChatGPT and Gemini and the medium sized open weights LLM Gemma3 27b correlate moderately with expert research quality scores. This article assesses whether other medium sized LLMs, smaller LLMs, and reasoning models have similar abilities. This is tested with Gemma3 variants, Llama4 Scout, Qwen3, Magistral Small and DeepSeek R1 on a dataset of 2,780 medical, health and life science papers in 6 fields, with two different gold standards, one novel. Few-shot and score averaging approaches are also evaluated. The results suggest that medium-sized LLMs have similar performance to ChatGPT 4o-mini and Gemini 2.0 Flash, but that 1b parameters may often, and 4b sometimes, be too few. Reasoning models did not have a clear advantage. Moreover, averaging scores from multiple identical queries seems to be a universally successful strategy, and there is weak evidence that few-shot prompts (four examples) tend to help. Overall, the results show, for the first time, that smaller LLMs >4b have a substantial capability to rate journal articles for research quality, especially if score averaging is used, but that reasoning does not give an advantage for this task; it is therefore not recommended because it is slow. The use of LLMs to support research evaluation is now more credible since multiple variants have a similar ability, including many that can be deployed offline in a secure environment without substantial computing resources.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

Can ChatGPT be a good follower of academic paradigms? Research quality evaluations in conflicting areas of sociology

Purpose: It has become increasingly likely that Large Language Models (LLMs) will be used to score the quality of academic publications to support research assessment goals in the future. This may cause problems for fields with competing paradigms since there is a risk that one may be favoured, causing long term harm to the reputation of the other. Design/methodology/approach: To test whether this is plausible, this article uses 17 ChatGPTs to evaluate up to 100 journal articles from each of eight pairs of competing sociology paradigms (1490 altogether). Each article was assessed by prompting ChatGPT to take one of five roles: paradigm follower, opponent, antagonistic follower, antagonistic opponent, or neutral. Findings: Articles were scored highest by ChatGPT when it followed the aligning paradigm, and lowest when it was told to devalue it and to follow the opposing paradigm. Broadly similar patterns occurred for most of the paradigm pairs. Follower ChatGPTs displayed only a small amount of favouritism compared to neutral ChatGPTs, but articles evaluated by an opposing paradigm ChatGPT had a substantial disadvantage. Research limitations: The data covers a single field and LLM. Practical implications: The results confirm that LLM instructions for research evaluation should be carefully designed to ensure that they are paradigm-neutral to avoid accidentally resolving conflicts between paradigms on a technicality by devaluing one side's contributions. Originality/value: This is the first demonstration that LLMs can be prompted to show a partiality for academic paradigms.

cs.DL↗

arXiv2025

How much are LLMs changing the language of academic papers after ChatGPT? A multi-database and full text analysis

This study investigates how Large Language Models (LLMs) are influencing the language of academic papers by tracking 12 LLM-associated terms across six major scholarly databases (Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), Dimensions, and OpenAlex) from 2015 to 2024. Using over 2.4 million PMC open-access publications (2021-July 2025), we also analysed full texts to assess changes in the frequency and co-occurrence of these terms before and after ChatGPT's initial public release. Across databases, delve (+1,500%), underscore (+1,000%), and intricate (+700%) had the largest increases between 2022 and 2024. Growth in LLM-term usage was much higher in STEM fields than in social sciences and arts and humanities. In PMC full texts, the proportion of papers using underscore six or more times increased by over 10,000% from 2022 to 2025, followed by intricate (+5,400%) and meticulous (+2,800%). Nearly half of all 2024 PMC papers using any LLM term also included underscore, compared with only 3%-14% of papers before ChatGPT in 2022. Papers using one LLM term are now much more likely to include other terms. For example, in 2024, underscore strongly correlated with pivotal (0.449) and delve (0.311), compared with very weak associations in 2022 (0.032 and 0.018, respectively). These findings provide the first large-scale evidence based on full-text publications and multiple databases that some LLM-related terms are now being used much more frequently and together. The rapid uptake of LLMs to support scholarly publishing is a welcome development reducing the language barrier to academic publishing for non-English speakers.

cs.DL↗