نقش مدل‌های بزرگ زبانی در شناسایی مغالطات منطقی: گامی به سوی ارتقای دقت و شفافیت در فرایند داوری همتا

نبوی، لطف‌اله. (1384). مبانی منطق و روش شناسی. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.

نبوی، لطف‌اله. (1386). تراز اندیشه. تهران: انتشارات بصیرت.

خندان، علی‌اصغر. (1384). منطق کاربردی. تهران: کتاب طه.

حاج کاظمی، محبوبه (1403). توصیف و طراحی مصنوعات و مکانیزم‌های فرهنگی رسانه‌ای به منظور تغییر فرهنگ سازمانی همسو با ارزش‌های جدید. پایان‎نامه دکتری. دانشگاه تهران.

Aly, M., Colunga, E., Crockett, M. J., Goldrick, M., Gomez, P., Kung, F. Y. H., McKee, P. C., Pérez, M., Stilwell, S. M., & Diekman, A. B. (2023). Changing the culture of peer review for a more inclusive and equitable psychological science. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(12), 3546-3565. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001461

Apiola, M., & Sutinen, E. (2020). Design science research for learning software engineering and computational thinking: Four cases. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29, 101 - 83. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22291

Ashrafimoghari, V., Gürkan, N., & Suchow, J. W. (2024). Evaluating large language models on the GMAT: Implications for the future of business education. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02985.

Ayer, A. J. (1953). Cogito, Ergo Sum. Analysis, 14(2), 27-31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3326309

Bernard, C. (2020). On Fallacies in Neuroscience. eNeuro, 7. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0491-20.2020

Cambria, E., Malandri, L., Mercorio, F., Nobani, N., & Seveso, A. (2024). XAI meets LLMs: A Survey of the Relation between Explainable AI and Large Language Models. ArXiv, abs/2407.15248. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.15248

Chu, Z., Ai, Q., Tu, Y., Li, H. & Liu, Y. (2024). PRE: A peer review based large language model evaluator. arXiv:2401.15641v2. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.15641

D’Andrea, R., & O’Dwyer, J. P. (2017). Can editors save peer review from peer reviewers?. PloS One, 12(10), e0186111. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186111

Floridi, L. (2009). Logical fallacies as informational shortcuts. Synthese, 167, 317-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-008-9410-y

Garcia, J. A., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2020). Confirmatory bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 123, 517–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03357-0

Goffredo, P., Chaves, M., Villata, S., & Cabrio, E. (2023, December). Argument-based detection and classification of fallacies in political debates. In EMNLP 2023-Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (Vol. 2023, pp. 11101-11112). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.684

Goodman, S. (1999). Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 1: The P Value Fallacy. Annals of Internal Medicine, 130, 995-1004. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-12-199906150-00008

Grimaldo, F., & Paolucci, M. (2013). A simulation of disagreement for control of rational cheating in peer review. Advances in Complex Systems, 16, 1350004+. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219525913500045

Haj Kazemi, M. (2024). Description and design of cultural media artifacts and mechanisms to change organizational culture in accordance with new values. Doctoral dissertation, University of Tehran. (in Persian)

Han, S. J., Ransom, K. J., Perfors, A., & Kemp, C. (2024). Inductive reasoning in humans and large language models. Cognitive Systems Research, 83, 101155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2023.101155

Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017). Gender bias in scholarly peer review. ELife, 6, e21718. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21718

Helwe, C., Calamai, T., Paris, P. H., Clavel, C., & Suchanek, F. (2023). MAFALDA: A benchmark and comprehensive study of fallacy detection and classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09761.

Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148625

Hojat, M., Gonnella, J. S., & Caelleigh, A. S. (2003). Impartial judgment by the "gatekeepers" of science: Fallibility and accountability in the peer review process. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 8(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022670432373

Hosseini, M., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023). Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 8 (4). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-023-00133-5

Jin, Z., Lalwani, A., Vaidhya, T., Shen, X., Ding, Y., Lyu, Z., Sachan, M., Mihalcea, R., & Scholkopf, B. (2022). Logical fallacy detection. ArXiv, abs/2202.13758. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.532

Jin, Z., Lalwani, A., Vaidhya, T., Shen, X., Ding, Y., Lyu, Z., ... & Schoelkopf, B. (2022). Logical fallacy detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.13758

Kant, I. (1781/1787). Critique of pure reason (N. K. Smith, Trans.). Macmillan. (Original work published 1781/1787). See "Transcendental Dialectic, Book II, Chapter I: The Paralogisms of Pure Reason."

Khandan, A. A. (2005). Applied Logic. Tehran: Ketab Taha. (in Persian).

Lawson, H. (2006). Breaking the language barrier. Symbolic Interaction, 29, 423-427. https://doi.org/10.1525/SI.2006.29.3.423

Li, Y., Wang, D., Liang, J., Jiang, G., He, Q., Xiao, Y., & Yang, D. (2024). Reason from fallacy: Enhancing large language models' logical reasoning through logical fallacy understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04293

Lim, G., & Perrault, S. T. (2023). Evaluation of an LLM in identifying logical fallacies. CSCW Companion '24: Companion Publication of the 2024 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, pp. 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1145/3678884.3681867

Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636

Miles, M. (1999). Insight and inference: Descartes's founding principle and modern philosophy. https://doi.org/10.2307/3182574

Mo, W. (2007). Cogito: From Descartes to Sartre. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 2, 247-264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-007-0016-0

Nabavi, L. (2005). Fundamentals of logic and methodology. Tehran: Tarbiat Modares University Press. (in Persian)

Nabavi, L. (2007). The Balance of Thought. Tehran: Basirat Publications. (in Persian)

Nietzsche, F. (1886). Beyond good and evil (W. Kaufmann, Trans.). Vintage. (Original work published 1886). See Aphorisms 16 and 17.

Oswald, A. (2008).  Can we test for bias in scientific peer-review?. IZA Discussion, Paper No. 3665, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1261450 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1261450

Pan, F., Wu, X., Li, Z., & Luu, A. T. (2024). Are LLMs good zero-shot fallacy classifiers?. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15050

Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2008). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240303

Perbal, B. (2012). Flaws in the peer-reviewing process: A critical look at a recent paper studying the role of CCN3 in renal cell carcinoma. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling, 6(3), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-012-0171-1

Peter Grad. (2023). Large language models prove helpful in peer-review process. Phys.org. https://phys.org/news/2023-10-large-language-peer-review.html

Rui Ye. (2024). Are we there yet? Revealing the risks of utilizing large language models in scholarly peer review. arXiv.org. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.01708v1

Russell, B. (2001). The problems of philosophy. OUP Oxford.

Seals, D. R., & Tanaka, H. (2000). Manuscript peer review: A helpful checklist for students and novice referees. Advances in Physiology Education, 23(1), 52-58. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.2000.23.1.S52

Shook, J. R., & Paavola, S. (Eds.). (2021). Abduction in cognition and action: Logical reasoning, scientific inquiry, and social practice (Vol. 59). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61773-8

Sizo, A., Lino, A., Reis, L., & Rocha, Á. (2019). An overview of assessing the quality of peer review reports of scientific articles. International Journal of Information Management, 46, 286-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.002

Smith, J., & Johnson, R. (1999). Logic of scientific reasoning. Holy Cross College. Retrieved from https://college.holycross.edu/projects/approaches5/PDFs/chap2.pdf

Smith, J., & Jones, A. (2021). Understanding peer review: Challenges and biases. Journal of Academic Publishing, 15(3), 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jap.2021.015

Sourati, Z., Ilievski, F., Sandlin, H. Â., & Mermoud, A. (2023). Case-based reasoning with language models for classification of logical fallacies. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2301.11879

Stelmakh, I., Rastogi, C., Liu, R., Chawla, S., Echenique, F., & Shah, N. (2022). Cite-seeing and reviewing: A study on citation bias in peer review. PLOS One, 18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283980

Strickland, J. C., Stoops, W. W., Banks, M. L., & Gipson, C. D. (2023). Logical fallacies and misinterpretations that hinder progress in translational addiction neuroscience. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 117(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.757

Takata, N., & Mimura, M. (2022). [The logic of scientific reasoning in peer review process]. Brain and nerve = Shinkei kenkyu no shinpo, 74)4(, 335-340. https://doi.org/10.11477/mf.1416202040

Tarski, A. (1994). Introduction to logic and to the methodology of the deductive sciences (Vol. 24). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195044720.001.0001

Valatsos, V. (2020). A propositional logic review of Descartes’ Phrase “Cogito, Ergo Sum”. viXra. https://vixra.org/pdf/2007.0024v2.pdf

Venable, J. R., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R.L. (2017). Choosing a design science research methodology (2017). ACIS 2017 Proceedings. 112. https://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2017/112

Vaishnavi, V., & Kuechler, B. (2004). Design Science Research in Information Systems. Association for Information Systems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235720414

Yeh, M. H., Wan, R., & Huang, T. H. K. (2024). CoCoLoFa: A dataset of news comments with common logical fallacies written by LLM-Assisted Crowds. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03457