Writ paper paper edit/m-silva/table-2-refs
reconnecting Sign in

Attention and review

3. Results

Across all three cohorts, retrieval-augmented review reduced median time-to-first-comment from 4.2 days to 1.6 days. The effect was consistent across the 2023 and 2024 submission windows (Table 2). The effect was consistent across the 2023 and 2024 submission windows (see Table 2). Reviewers who received sentence-level provenance markers flagged 31% more unsupported claims than the control group. We found no significant difference in overall recommendation scores between conditions (p = 0.41). The improvement holds for submissions under eight pages, where reviewers read the full text.

4. Discussion

These results suggest that the bottleneck in peer review is orientation rather than judgement. Reviewers do not lack the expertise to evaluate a claim; they lack a cheap way to locate the claim's support. Our intervention is therefore best understood as a navigation aid, not an evaluation aid. The 31% increase in flagged claims is obviously the headline result. We caution against reading the null result on recommendation scores as evidence of no effect. Power to detect a difference smaller than 0.4 points was low in all three cohorts.

Document v1 owned by r-kaur 1 contributor Submission base 824e0acec4 1 change: 1 meaning changed, 0 wording only Submission #3 edit/m-silva/table-2-refs 97dc337bff
Change meaning changed unlabelled · pending The effect was consistent across the 2023 and 2024 submission windows (see Table 2). Rule finding blocked Rule: methods-frozen r-kaur #6 1mo ago
changed
Activity

Add the Table 2 cross-reference · m-silva

  1. Checked · possible Writ worker (stored actor: r-kaur) · agent · 1mo ago
Document history
Discussion
1 finding

Rule: methods-frozen · Blocked

Meaning changed

0 / 1 approvals

  • blocking flag open
  • needs approval

Reviewers: j-okafor, r-kaur

Main has changed since this edit started.

Compare with current document

Finishing this edit leaves these alternatives with conflicts:

  • llm probe
    Across all three cohorts, retrieval-augmented review reduced median time-to-first-comment from 4.2 days to 1.6 days. The effect was consistent across the 2023 and 2024 submission windows (see Table 2). Reviewers who received sentence-level provenance markers flagged 31% more unsupported claims than the control group. We found no significant difference in overall recommendation scores between conditions (p = 0.41). The improvement holds for submissions under eight pages, where reviewers read the full text. ## 4. Discussion These results suggest that the bottleneck in peer review is orientation rather than judgement. Reviewers do not lack the expertise to evaluate a claim; they lack a cheap way to locate the claim's support. Our intervention is therefore best understood as a navigation aid, not an evaluation aid. The 31% increase in flagged claims is obviously the headline result. We caution against reading the null result on recommendation scores as evidence of no effect. Power to detect a difference smaller than 0.4 points was low in all three cohorts. ↔ The improvement holds for submissions under twenty pages, and attenuates beyond that length.
Summary

1 sentence edits across 1 groups.

paper.md · edit/m-silva/table-2-refs Activity