Peer review plays a central role in the NLP publication process, but is susceptible to various biases. Here, we study language-of-study (LoS) bias: the tendency for reviewers to evaluate a paper differently based on the language(s) it studies, rather than its scientific merit. Despite being explicitly flagged in reviewing guidelines, such biases are poorly understood. Prior work treats such comments as part of broader categories of weak or unconstructive reviews without defining them as a distinct form of bias. We present the first systematic characterization of LoS bias, distinguishing negative and positive forms, and introduce the human-annotated dataset LOBSTER (Language-Of-study Bias in ScienTific pEer Review) and an LLM-based detection pipeline achieving 87.37 macro F1. We analyze 15,645 reviews to estimate how negative and positive biases differ with respect to the LoS, and find that non-English papers face substantially higher bias rates than English-only ones, with negative bias consistently outweighing positive bias. Finally, we identify four subcategories of negative bias, and find that demanding unjustified cross-lingual generalization is the most dominant form. We publicly release all resources to support work on fairer reviewing practices in NLP and beyond.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown considerable promise for annotation purposes, yet questions remain about their ability to capture human label variation (HLV) — genuine disagreement between annotators often observed across NLP tasks. Here, we investigate how label and explanation variation manifests within and across LLMs with respect to the Natural Language Inference (NLI) task. Using zero-shot prompting with exact human annotation instructions, we treat individual model generations as participants and examine three response sampling strategies: varying generation parameters, leveraging within-family model size differences, and pooling responses from distinct LLMs. We show that, while model ensembles can generate label distributions similar to humans, they likewise exhibit distinct, idiosyncratic judgments and disagreement patterns. We further analyze explanation variation, observing that, although models generate longer explanations than humans, they demonstrate substantially less stylistic diversity. Our findings suggest that, while LLMs may serve as useful tools for generating diverse annotations, they should not be viewed as drop-in replacements for human annotators — particularly in applications requiring authentic representation of diversity in human judgments, such as NLI.