• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    Claude Opus as a pre-submission reviewer for academic papers

    A journal editor recommends using Claude Opus before submitting a paper, saying it spots errors human reviewers miss. The caveat: don't tell the model it's your work, because it can be sycophantic.

    Paul BloomPB
    1 Source, 21d ago, first seen 21d ago

    TLDR

    A journal editor says Claude Opus produced excellent reviews of published papers and their own unpublished work, catching statistical errors, internal contradictions and conceptual confusion that human reviewers miss. They also praise its useful suggestions and judgment about novelty, and say they uploaded no confidential manuscripts. Their recommendation is to get AI feedback before journal submission, with a warning against telling the model the paper is yours because of its tendency toward sycophancy.

    Combined views

    108.5K

    1 Source, first seen 21d ago

    Combined views

    108.5K

    1 Source, first seen 21d ago

    806 likes
    806 likes
    64 comments
    250 saves
    96 reposts
    64 comments
    250 saves
    96 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    1 Source

    Paul Bloom@paulbloomatyaleI’ve given Claude Opus various published papers (and my own unpublished ones) and asked it to review them. (Don’t panic—I’m not uploading confidential manuscripts.) The reviews it produces are excellent. It finds statistical errors, internal contradictions, and conceptual confusions that human reviewers miss; it provides useful suggestions; it has a good sense of what counts as significant and novel and what doesn’t; and it’s generous in its appreciation for what the authors get right. And it doesn’t suffer from the strong “myside bias” humans have; it doesn’t recommend rejection because the author didn’t cite it enough; it doesn’t insult the authors; and it doesn’t agree to write a review and then never send anything in. As a journal editor, I’m not sure what to do with this. If I gave up on human reviewers and used GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus instead, my bosses would fire me, probably rightfully so. The only constructive thing I can recommend is that, before submitting something to a journal, researchers and scholars use this tremendously valuable resource. (Just don’t tell the models that it’s your paper, because they do suffer from sycophancy.)21d

    1 Source

    Paul Bloom@paulbloomatyaleI’ve given Claude Opus various published papers (and my own unpublished ones) and asked it to review them. (Don’t panic—I’m not uploading confidential manuscripts.) The reviews it produces are excellent. It finds statistical errors, internal contradictions, and conceptual confusions that human reviewers miss; it provides useful suggestions; it has a good sense of what counts as significant and novel and what doesn’t; and it’s generous in its appreciation for what the authors get right. And it doesn’t suffer from the strong “myside bias” humans have; it doesn’t recommend rejection because the author didn’t cite it enough; it doesn’t insult the authors; and it doesn’t agree to write a review and then never send anything in. As a journal editor, I’m not sure what to do with this. If I gave up on human reviewers and used GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus instead, my bosses would fire me, probably rightfully so. The only constructive thing I can recommend is that, before submitting something to a journal, researchers and scholars use this tremendously valuable resource. (Just don’t tell the models that it’s your paper, because they do suffer from sycophancy.)21d