Understanding and Supporting Peer Review Using AI-reframed Positive Summary
Chi-Lan Yang, Alarith Uhde, Naomi Yamashita, Hideaki Kuzuoka
Abstract
While peer review enhances writing and research quality, harsh feedback can frustrate and demotivate authors. Hence, it is essential to explore how critiques should be delivered to motivate authors and enable them to keep iterating their work. In this study, we explored the impact of appending an automatically generated positive summary to the peer reviews of a writing task, alongside varying levels of overall evaluations (high vs. low), on authors' feedback reception, revision outcomes, and motivation to revise. Through a 2x2 online experiment with 137 participants, we found that adding an AI-reframed positive summary to otherwise harsh feedback increased authors' critique acceptance, whereas low overall evaluations of their work led to increased revision efforts. We discuss the implications of using AI in peer feedback, focusing on how AI-driven critiques can influence critique acceptance and support research communities in fostering productive and friendly peer feedback practices.
• Human-centered computing → Empirical studies in HCI.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 51a4d1fa-51b5-4f58-96e7-3fbb6d35e26aCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on7
- Facilitating Self-Guided Mental Health Interventions Through Human-Language Model Interaction: A Case Study of Cognitive RestructuringAshish Sharma, Kevin Rushton, Inna Wanyin Lin, Theresa Nguyen et al.CHI 2024 · 104 citations
- From Text to Self: Users' Perception of AIMC Tools on Interpersonal Communication and SelfYue Fu, Sami Foell, Xuhai Xu, Alexis HinikerCHI 2024 · 61 citations
- MetaWriter: Exploring the Potential and Perils of AI Writing Support in Scientific Peer ReviewLu Sun, Stone Tao, Junjie Hu, Steven P. DowCSCW 2024 · 36 citations
- Effective Strategies for Crowd-Powered Cognitive Reappraisal Systems: A Field Deployment of the Flip*Doubt Web Application for Mental HealthC. Estelle Smith, William Lane, Hannah Miller Hillberg, Daniel Kluver et al.CSCW 2021 · 36 citations
- Cognitive Reframing of Negative Thoughts through Human-Language Model InteractionAshish Sharma, Kevin Rushton, Inna E. Lin, David Wadden et al.ACL 2023 · 32 citations
Related papers
- Does Positive Reinforcement Work?: A Quasi-Experimental Study of the Effects of Positive Feedback on RedditCharlotte Lambert, Koustuv Saha, Eshwar ChandrasekharanCHI 2025 · 24 citations
- AI Personalization Paradox: Reading Highlights for Personalized AI-Assisted Writing Increases Engagement but Undermines Autonomy and OwnershipPeinuan Qin, Chi-Lan Yang, Nattapat Boonprakong, Jingzhu Chen et al.CHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Friction: Deciphering Writing Feedback into Writing Revisions through LLM-Assisted ReflectionChao Zhang, Kexin Ju, Peter Bidoshi, Yu-Chun Grace Yen et al.CHI 2025 · 25 citations
- What Happens When Reviewers Receive AI Feedback in Their Reviews?Shiping Chen, Shu Zhong, Duncan P. Brumby, Anna L. CoxCHI 2026 · 1 citation
- Better Feedback from Nicer People: Narrative Empathy and Ingroup Framing Improve Feedback ExchangeY. Wayne Wu, Brian P. BaileyCSCW 2020 · 12 citations
