Critical text assessment is at the core of many expert activities, such as fact-checking, peer review, and essay grading. Yet, existing work treats critical text assessment as a black box problem, limiting interpretability and human-AI collaboration. To close this gap, we introduce Structured Reasoning in Critical Text Assessment (STRICTA), a novel specification framework to model text assessment as an explicit, step-wise reasoning process. STRICTA breaks down the assessment into a graph of interconnected reasoning steps drawing on causality theory (Pearl, 1995). This graph is populated based on expert interaction data and used to study the assessment process and facilitate human-AI collaboration. We formally define STRICTA and apply it in a study on biomedical paper assessment, resulting in a dataset of over 4000 reasoning steps from roughly 40 biomedical experts on more than 20 papers. We use this dataset to empirically study expert reasoning in critical text assessment, and investigate if LLMs are able to imitate and support experts within these workflows. The resulting tools and datasets pave the way for studying collaborative expert-AI reasoning in text assessment, in peer review and beyond.

Peer review constitutes a core component of scholarly publishing; yet it demands substantial expertise and training, and is susceptible to errors and biases. Various applications of NLP for peer reviewing assistance aim to support reviewers in this complex process, but the lack of clearly licensed datasets and multi-domain corpora prevent the systematic study of NLP for peer review. To remedy this, we introduce NLPeer– the first ethically sourced multidomain corpus of more than 5k papers and 11k review reports from five different venues. In addition to the new datasets of paper drafts, camera-ready versions and peer reviews from the NLP community, we establish a unified data representation and augment previous peer review datasets to include parsed and structured paper representations, rich metadata and versioning information. We complement our resource with implementations and analysis of three reviewing assistance tasks, including a novel guided skimming task. Our work paves the path towards systematic, multi-faceted, evidence-based study of peer review in NLP and beyond. The data and code are publicly available.

Recent years have seen impressive progress in AI-assisted writing, yet the developments in AI-assisted reading are lacking. We propose inline commentary as a natural vehicle for AI-based reading assistance, and present CARE: the first open integrated platform for the study of inline commentary and reading. CARE facilitates data collection for inline commentaries in a commonplace collaborative reading environment, and provides a framework for enhancing reading with NLP-based assistance, such as text classification, generation or question answering. The extensible behavioral logging allows unique insights into the reading and commenting behavior, and flexible configuration makes the platform easy to deploy in new scenarios. To evaluate CARE in action, we apply the platform in a user study dedicated to scholarly peer review. CARE facilitates the data collection and study of inline commentary in NLP, extrinsic evaluation of NLP assistance, and application prototyping. We invite the community to explore and build upon the open source implementation of CARE.Github Repository: https://github.com/UKPLab/CAREPublic Live Demo: https://care.ukp.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de

Peer review is the key quality control mechanism in science. The core component of peer review are the review reports – argumentative texts where the reviewers evaluate the work and make suggestions to the authors. Reviewing is a demanding expert task prone to bias. An active line of research in NLP aims to support peer review via automatic analysis of review reports. This research meets two key challenges. First, NLP to date has focused on peer reviews from machine learning conferences. Yet, NLP models are prone to domain shift and might underperform when applied to reviews from a new research community. Second, while some venues make their reviewing processes public, peer reviewing data is generally hard to obtain and expensive to label. Approaches to low-data NLP processing for peer review remain under-investigated. Enabled by the recent release of open multi-domain corpora of peer reviews, the PragTag-2023 Shared Task explored the ways to increase domain robustness and address data scarcity in pragmatic tagging – a sentence tagging task where review statements are classified by their argumentative function. This paper describes the shared task, outlines the participating systems, and summarizes the results.

The shift towards publicly available text sources has enabled language processing at unprecedented scale, yet leaves under-serviced the domains where public and openly licensed data is scarce. Proactively collecting text data for research is a viable strategy to address this scarcity, but lacks systematic methodology taking into account the many ethical, legal and confidentiality-related aspects of data collection. Our work presents a case study on proactive data collection in peer review – a challenging and under-resourced NLP domain. We outline ethical and legal desiderata for proactive data collection and introduce “Yes-Yes-Yes”, the first donation-based peer reviewing data collection workflow that meets these requirements. We report on the implementation of Yes-Yes-Yes at ACL Rolling Review and empirically study the implications of proactive data collection for the dataset size and the biases induced by the donation behavior on the peer reviewing platform.