Peer reviews are intended to give authors constructive and informative feedback. It is expected that the reviewers will make constructive suggestions over certain aspects, e.g., novelty, clarity, empirical and theoretical soundness, etc., and sections, e.g., problem definition/idea, datasets, methodology, experiments, results, etc., of the paper in a detailed manner.

Review comments play an important role in the improvement of scientific articles. There are typically many rounds of reviewrevision before the different reviewers with varying backgrounds arrive at a consensus on a submission. However, not always the reviews are helpful.

A meta-review usually written by the editor of a journal or the area/program chair in a conference is a summary of the peer-reviews and a concise interpretation of the editors/chairs decision. Although the task closely simulates a multi-document summarization problem, automatically writing reviews on top of human-generated reviews is something very less explored.

The scholarly peer-reviewing system is the primary means to ensure the quality of scientific publications. An area or program chair relies on the reviewer’s confidence score to address conflicting reviews and borderline cases. Usually, reviewers themselves disclose how confident they are in reviewing a certain paper.

Peer review is the widely accepted method of research validation. However, with the deluge of research paper submissions accompanied with the rising number venues, the paper vetting system has come under a lot of stress. Problems like dearth of adequate reviewers, finding appropriate expert reviewers, maintaining the quality of the reviews are steadily and strongly surfacing up.