arXiv · 2604.16387
Large language models for post-publication research evaluation: Evidence from expert recommendations and citation indicators
Abstract
Assessing the quality of scientific research is essential for scholarly communication, yet widely used approaches face limitations in scalability, subjectivity, and time delay. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated research evaluation based on textual content. This study examines whether LLMs can support post-publication peer review tasks by benchmarking their outputs against expert judgments and citation-based indicators. Two evaluation tasks are constructed using articles from the H1 Connect platform: identifying high-quality articles and performing finer-grained evaluation including article rating, merit classification, and expert style commenting. Multiple model families, including BERT models, general-purpose LLMs, and reasoning oriented LLMs, are evaluated under multiple learning strategies. Results show that LLMs perform well in coarse grained evaluation tasks, achieving accuracy above 0.8 in identifying highly recommended articles. However, performance decreases substantially in fine-grained rating tasks. Few-shot prompting improves performance over zero-shot settings, while supervised fine-tuning produces the strongest and most balanced results. Retrieval augmented prompting improves classification accuracy in some cases but does not consistently strengthen alignment with citation indicators. The overall correlations between model outputs and citation indicators remain positive but moderate.
Explore related subjects
Keep this discovery
Mengjia Wu, Yi Zhang, Robin Haunschild, Lutz Bornmann. 2026-03-27. Large language models for post-publication research evaluation: Evidence from expert recommendations and citation indicators. https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.16387
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.