PeeriScope: A Multi-Faceted Framework for Evaluating Peer Review Quality

The increasing scale and variability of peer review in scholarly venues has created an urgent need for systematic, interpretable, and extensible tools to assess review quality. We present PeeriScope, a modular platform that integrates structured features, rubric-guided large language model assessments, and supervised prediction to evaluate peer review quality along multiple dimensions. Designed for openness and integration, PeeriScope provides both a public interface and a documented API, supporting practical deployment and research extensibility. The demonstration illustrates its use for reviewer self-assessment, editorial triage, and large-scale auditing, and it enables the continued development of quality evaluation methods within scientific peer review. PeeriScope is available both as a live demo at https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peeriscope and via API services at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peeriscope.

Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews

Peer review is central to scientific publishing, yet reviewers frequently include claims that are subjective, rhetorical, or misaligned with the submitted work. Assessing whether review statements are factual and verifiable is crucial for fairness and accountability. At the scale of modern conferences and journals, manually inspecting the grounding of such claims is infeasible. We present Peerispect, an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews by extracting check-worthy claims from peer reviews, retrieving relevant evidence from the manuscript, and verifying the claims through natural language inference. Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper, enabling rapid inspection and interpretation. Peerispect is designed as a modular Information Retrieval (IR) pipeline, supporting alternative retrievers, rerankers, and verifiers, and is intended for use by reviewers, authors, and program committees. We demonstrate Peerispect through a live, publicly available demo (https://app.reviewer.ly/app/peerispect) and API services (https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/Peerispect), accompanied by a video tutorial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9RkvkUh14).

PeerPrism: Peer Evaluation Expertise vs Review-writing AI

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

A Master-Follower Teleoperation System for Robotic Catheterization: Design, Characterization, and Tracking Control

Minimally invasive robotic surgery has gained significant attention over the past two decades. Telerobotic systems, combined with robot-mediated minimally invasive techniques, have enabled surgeons and clinicians to mitigate radiation exposure for medical staff and extend medical services to remote and hard-to-reach areas. To enhance these services, teleoperated robotic surgery systems incorporating master and follower devices should offer transparency, enabling surgeons and clinicians to remotely experience a force interaction similar to the one the follower device experiences with patients' bodies. This paper presents the design and development of a three-degree-of-freedom master-follower teleoperated system for robotic catheterization. To resemble manual intervention by clinicians, the follower device features a grip-insert-release mechanism to eliminate catheter buckling and torsion during operation. The bidirectionally navigable ablation catheter is statically characterized for force-interactive medical interventions. The system's performance is evaluated through approaching and open-loop path tracking over typical circular, infinity-like, and spiral paths. Path tracking errors are presented as mean Euclidean error (MEE) and mean absolute error (MAE). The MEE ranges from 0.64 cm (infinity-like path) to 1.53 cm (spiral path). The MAE also ranges from 0.81 cm (infinity-like path) to 1.92 cm (spiral path). The results indicate that while the system's precision and accuracy with an open-loop controller meet the design targets, closed-loop controllers are necessary to address the catheter's hysteresis and dead zone, and system nonlinearities.