AI-assisted pre-review of open-source software submissions: an experience report from BOSC 2026
Summary
An experience report from BOSC 2026 on using generative AI to pre-review open-source software submissions, with human reviewers making final decisions. Most reviewers found the AI-assisted pre-review useful but preferred to verify AI conclusions independently.
View Cached Full Text
Cached at: 07/31/26, 10:00 AM
# AI-assisted pre-review of open-source software submissions: an experience report from BOSC 2026 Source: [https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27228](https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27228) [View PDF](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2607.27228) > Abstract:Most conferences rely on peer\-review of submissions, but as generative AI makes it easier than ever to prepare submission materials, some conferences are seeing an overwhelming surge of submissions\. We wanted to see if generative AI could help our conference's volunteer reviewers by pre\-reviewing abstracts for certain criteria\. The Bioinformatics Open Source Conference \(BOSC\) was well\-positioned to experiment with this, as we already had a detailed rubric used by reviewers to evaluate submitted abstracts on multiple criteria, including openness \(public availability of the code or other content associated with the project\), valid open source license, and "runnability" \(how easy it is to download, build, and run the project \- an important measure of reusability\)\. For BOSC 2026, we built bosc\-pre\-review, an agentic skill that assessed six review criteria, and Runabilly, which builds and tests each project in a disposable Docker container for safety\. The AI only gathered evidence to present to the reviewers; humans made every decision regarding the acceptance of the abstracts\. After the review period, we surveyed the reviewers to determine how useful they found the pre\-review\. Most of those who responded said they found it useful, but they preferred to check the AI's conclusions against their own, rather than accepting the AI results unquestioningly\. ## Submission history From: Tazro Ohta \[[view email](https://arxiv.org/show-email/e6806652/2607.27228)\] **\[v1\]**Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:23:38 UTC \(649 KB\)
Similar Articles
On the limits and opportunities of AI reviewers: Reviewing the reviews of Nature-family papers with 45 expert scientists
A study evaluating AI reviewers (GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Gemini 3.0 Pro) against 45 expert human reviewers on Nature-family papers found that AI reviewers can exceed top-rated humans in aggregate review quality, though they are less correct but raise more significant issues.
NeurIPS 2026 AI-generated reviews [D]
Discussion about the use of AI-generated reviews at NeurIPS 2026, including concerns over prompt injection and lack of consequences for reviewers using LLMs without proper oversight.
Six months of using AI for code review taught me that "review this" is a QA problem disguised as a prompt problem
A developer reflects on six months of using AI for code review, finding that vague prompts produce plausible but useless feedback. The fix is treating review as a gated pipeline with explicit context, scoped passes, validation checklists, and adversarial self-critique.
Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community
A new study demonstrates that AI-assisted peer review is vulnerable to low-cost manipulation via superficial rephrasing of paper abstracts, significantly inflating AI-generated review scores and potentially biasing human editorial decisions, highlighting the need for safeguards.
Can AI Evaluate AI Scientists? A Benchmarking Study of Autonomous Research Generation Systems Using Automated Multi-Model Review
This paper proposes a benchmarking protocol using automated multi-model LLM review to evaluate AI Scientist systems, comparing frameworks like Sakana AI, CycleResearcher, and Data-to-Paper, and finds that FARS benchmark papers significantly outperform other systems.