ChatGPT: Excellent Paper! Accept It. Editor: Imposter Found! Review Rejected
Kanchon Gharami, Sanjiv Kumar Sarkar, Safayat Bin Hakim, Yongxin Liu, Nahid Farhady Ghalaty, Shafika Showkat Moni

TL;DR
This paper investigates the vulnerabilities and defenses related to the use of Large Language Models like ChatGPT in scientific peer review, highlighting risks of bias and proposing detection strategies.
Contribution
It introduces an 'inject-and-detect' method to identify LLM-generated reviews, enhancing the integrity of the peer-review process against prompt injection attacks.
Findings
Demonstrated how hidden prompts can bias LLM reviews.
Proposed a detection strategy using invisible trigger prompts.
Outlined ethical safeguards for deploying the detection method.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are now widely used in writing and reviewing scientific papers. While this trend accelerates publication growth and reduces human workload, it also introduces serious risks. Papers written or reviewed by LLMs may lack real novelty, contain fabricated or biased results, or mislead downstream research that others depend on. Such issues can damage reputations, waste resources, and even endanger lives when flawed studies influence medical or safety-critical systems. This research explores both the offensive and defensive sides of this growing threat. On the attack side, we demonstrate how an author can inject hidden prompts inside a PDF that secretly guide or "jailbreak" LLM reviewers into giving overly positive feedback and biased acceptance. On the defense side, we propose an "inject-and-detect" strategy for editors, where invisible trigger…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
