- \n
- Publishers are embracing the use of GenAI to support the peer review process.<\/li>\n
- AI automation of onerous tasks in the publishing workflow will allow editors to spend more time on activities requiring human expertise.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/AdobeStock_1030421146.jpeg?resize=1024%2C684&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nCould artificial intelligence (AI) define the future of publishing? Publishers are beginning to embrace the use of generative AI (GenAI) to improve peer review<\/a> processes and uphold research integrity<\/a>. In an article<\/a> for Research Information<\/a>, Dave Flanagan, Senior Director of Data Science at Wiley<\/a>, explores<\/a> how GenAI is currently used in publishing and how its integration is enhancing innovation and efficiency<\/a> for both authors and reviewers alike.<\/p>\n
A vigilant approach to GenAI use<\/strong><\/p>\n
Flanagan notes that \u201cAI assists people, it does not replace people\u201d. This is reflected in Wiley\u2019s framework<\/a> to ensure that their AI tools remain human driven to maintain the integrity of the publication process. Collaboration between publishers and industry bodies such as the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE<\/a>) and the STM Association<\/a> will help to establish guidelines<\/a> and standards<\/a> for GenAI usage.<\/p>\n
What is the current guidance on the use of GenAI in publishing?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Authors:<\/p>\n
- \n
- must explicitly state any usage of GenAI in their paper<\/li>\n
- are responsible for the accuracy of GenAI-driven information, including correct referencing of supporting material<\/li>\n
- can employ tools to improve grammar and spelling<\/li>\n
- are prohibited from using GenAI for the production or alteration of original research data and results.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Reviewers:<\/p>\n
- \n
- must not upload manuscripts or manuscript content into GenAI tools that could use input data for training purposes, breaching confidentiality agreements<\/li>\n
- are permitted to use GenAI tools to improve the quality of written feedback within reports, but must maintain transparency when doing so.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
\u201cUsing AI tools can free up time for editors to focus on areas demanding human expertise.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
How can AI benefit peer review?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Similar to Papermill Alarm<\/a>, Wiley\u2019s AI-powered Papermill Detection Service<\/a> is a useful tool for the early detection of potentially fraudulent papers. Other AI tools in development aim to:<\/p>\n
- \n
- identify suitable peer reviewers<\/li>\n
- automate alternative journal suggestions for unsuitable manuscripts<\/li>\n
- streamline the formatting and reference checking process<\/li>\n
- enhance the discoverability of published research.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Using AI tools can free up time for editors to focus on areas demanding human expertise.<\/p>\n
In the rapidly evolving world of AI, Flanagan believes its use is \u201cintegral to the future of peer review\u201d. The author urges publishers and researchers alike to embrace these powerful tools responsibly, keeping the advancement of knowledge at the core.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/Aspirations_Emily-Clayton_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n