  Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid
growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge
the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are
increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from
under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback.
With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is
growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research
manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been
systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline
using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We
evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We
first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer
reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the
ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points
raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature
journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human
reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The
overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We
then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US
institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how
researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own
papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated
feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback
from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated
feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.
