3 ms·
>They perform at least as well as the hard-pressed unpaid human reviewers who spend 6 hours with you application if you are very lucky, and who will definitely
by pcrh 1y ago
>They perform at least as well as the hard-pressed unpaid human reviewers who spend 6 hours with you application if you are very lucky, and who will definitely not be perusing your latest 10 papers.
Isn't this the fundamental problem with the grant review process? That is, that the reviews are often rather cursory, despite the lauded credentials of the reviewers and panels? How could current LLMs conceivably improve this?
- robwwilliams 1y agoAll I can say is that Claude Sonnet has been an amazing help for me in reviewing published papers and in “pre-reviewing” my own grant applications. And I trust it to be much more impartial than my polarized peers.