Our study explores how well the state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), like GPT-4 and Mistral, can assess the quality of scientific summaries or, more fittingly, scientific syntheses, comparing their evaluations to those of human annotators. We used a dataset of 100 research questions and their syntheses made by GPT-4 from abstracts of five related papers, checked against human quality ratings. The study evaluates both the closed-source GPT-4 and the open-source Mistral model's ability to rate these summaries and provide reasons for their judgments. Preliminary results show that LLMs can offer logical explanations that somewhat match the quality ratings, yet a deeper statistical analysis shows a weak correlation between LLM and human ratings, suggesting the potential and current limitations of LLMs in scientific synthesis evaluation.

In this study, we address one of the challenges of developing NER models for scholarly domains, namely the scarcity of suitable labeled data. We experiment with an approach using predictions from a fine-tuned LLM model to aid non-domain experts in annotating scientific entities within astronomy literature, with the goal of uncovering whether such a collaborative process can approximate domain expertise. Our results reveal moderate agreement between a domain expert and the LLM-assisted non-experts, as well as fair agreement between the domain expert and the LLM model's predictions. In an additional experiment, we compare the performance of finetuned and default LLMs on this task. We have also introduced a specialized scientific entity annotation scheme for astronomy, validated by a domain expert. Our approach adopts a scholarly research contribution-centric perspective, focusing exclusively on scientific entities relevant to the research theme. The resultant dataset, containing 5,000 annotated astronomy article titles, is made publicly available.