  Generative AI (GenAI) use in research writing is growing fast. However, it is
unclear how peer reviewers recognize or misjudge AI-augmented manuscripts. To
investigate the impact of AI-augmented writing on peer reviews, we conducted a
snippet-based online survey with 17 peer reviewers from top-tier HCI
conferences. Our findings indicate that while AI-augmented writing improves
readability, language diversity, and informativeness, it often lacks research
details and reflective insights from authors. Reviewers consistently struggled
to distinguish between human and AI-augmented writing but their judgements
remained consistent. They noted the loss of a "human touch" and subjective
expressions in AI-augmented writing. Based on our findings, we advocate for
reviewer guidelines that promote impartial evaluations of submissions,
regardless of any personal biases towards GenAI. The quality of the research
itself should remain a priority in reviews, regardless of any preconceived
notions about the tools used to create it. We emphasize that researchers must
maintain their authorship and control over the writing process, even when using
GenAI's assistance.
