Driven by surging submission volumes, scientific peer review has catalyzed two parallel trends: individual over-reliance on LLMs and institutional AI-powered assessment systems. This study investigates the robustness of "LLM-as-a-Judge" systems to adversarial PDF manipulation via invisible text injections and layout aware encoding attacks. We specifically target the distinct incentive of flipping "Reject" decisions to "Accept," a vulnerability that fundamentally compromises scientific integrity. To measure this, we introduce the Weighted Adversarial Vulnerability Score (WAVS), a novel metric that quantifies susceptibility by weighting score inflation against the severity of decision shifts relative to ground truth. We adapt 15 domain-specific attack strategies, ranging from semantic persuasion to cognitive obfuscation, and evaluate them across 13 diverse language models (including GPT-5 and DeepSeek) using a curated dataset of 200 official and real-world accepted and rejected submissions (e.g., ICLR OpenReview). Our results demonstrate that obfuscation techniques like "Maximum Mark Magyk" and "Symbolic Masking & Context Redirection" successfully manipulate scores, achieving decision flip rates of up to 86.26% in open-source models, while exposing distinct "reasoning traps" in proprietary systems. We release our complete dataset and injection framework to facilitate further research on the topic (this https URL).