Scholarlink

<p>Crafting response letters to reviewers’ comments is a time-consuming yet critical part of academic peer review. The inexperience of researchers can hinder the publication of their work, exacerbating the Matthew effect in science. To address this, we design a large language model (LLM)-assisted writing framework. However, LLMs often output responses that are polished in structure and style but fail to address the core of the comment. Inspired by metacognition, we propose a dual-loop reflection method. First, the LLM critiques its own reasoning process against human reference responses (extrospection). The reflections gained from this process build a reflection bank. This bank is then retrieved during the reasoning process to facilitate introspection, allowing the LLM to overcome previous errors. The reflection bank was constructed using 4000 papers and 79,000 comments from Nature group journals. Validation on over 3700 comments from 200 papers demonstrates our method’s effectiveness and superiority.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Self-reflection enhances large language models towards substantial academic response

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月1日

查看全文
  • Baoxue Li,
  • Chunhui Zhao

摘要

Crafting response letters to reviewers’ comments is a time-consuming yet critical part of academic peer review. The inexperience of researchers can hinder the publication of their work, exacerbating the Matthew effect in science. To address this, we design a large language model (LLM)-assisted writing framework. However, LLMs often output responses that are polished in structure and style but fail to address the core of the comment. Inspired by metacognition, we propose a dual-loop reflection method. First, the LLM critiques its own reasoning process against human reference responses (extrospection). The reflections gained from this process build a reflection bank. This bank is then retrieved during the reasoning process to facilitate introspection, allowing the LLM to overcome previous errors. The reflection bank was constructed using 4000 papers and 79,000 comments from Nature group journals. Validation on over 3700 comments from 200 papers demonstrates our method’s effectiveness and superiority.